Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. Speaker in the Chair]

Oral Answers to Questions — EMPLOYMENT

Blaydon-on-Tyne

Mr. Woof: asked the Minister of Labour how many unemployed disabled persons were registering at Blaydon-on-Tyne employment exchange in June, 1963; and how this compares with the figures for June last year.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Labour (Mr. William White-law): There were 97 disabled persons registered as unemployed on 10th June, 1963, the same number as on 18th June, 1962.

Mr. Woof: Does not the Parliamentary Secretary appreciate that this tragedy is likely to get worse because of the declining basic industries and seasonal factors? Does he not also appreciate how these disabled persons have to try to exist on a miserable dole? What steps is he prepared to take to provide suitable employment for the disabled, especially to deal with the long-term problem?

Mr. Whitelaw: Everyone in the House would accept what the hon. Member says about the importance of the problem which he has raised. From what he has said, I think that he would also accept that the employment difficulties experienced by disabled persons are an integral part of the general employment problem on Tyneside. Therefore, the measures which the Government are taking to improve that position are bound also to help the disabled.

Mr. Woof: asked the Minister of Labour what steps he is taking to provide a training centre in Blaydon-on-Tyne for unemployed juveniles.

Mr. Whitelaw: My right hon. Friend is not proposing to set up a training centre for unemployed juveniles at Blaydon, although he is enlarging the facilities of the centre at Felling for the training of first year apprentices.

Mr. Woof: Is the Parliamentary Secretary aware of the high rate of juvenile unemployment throughout the Blaydon Parliamentary division? Is he further aware that on present indications there is a substantial risk of more juveniles being unable to get employment? Does he not agree that there should be close liaison with education authorities on matters such as pre-industrial training and that if the plans of the National Economic Development Council are to be carried into effect, increased training on that scale is vital?

Mr. Whitelaw: I would agree at once that the closest liaison possible should be maintained with the education authorities, and that certainly is the case. I think that the N.E.D.C. Report has shown how valuable will be the Government's proposals in the White Paper on Industrial Training. We hope to convert these proposals into action soon.

Dock Labour (Decasualisation)

Mr. Shepherd: asked the Minister of Labour when he hopes to be able to de-casualise dock labour in the United Kingdom.

The Minister of Labour (Mr. John Hare): It is the declared objective or the National Joint Council for the Port Transport Industry, which I strongly support to achieve further decasualisation of the dock labour force at the earliest possible date. The Council has called upon local port committees to prepare plans to this end on the basis of principles agreed by the Council. Discussions are at present proceeding between the employers and union representatives in most of the major ports and have reached an advanced stage in the Port of London. Complex problems are involved in translating the general principles agreed by the Council into practical measures which have regard to the varying circumstances in the ports. I am hopeful, however, that agreement in London will


not be long delayed and that rapid progress will be achieved in the other ports. I am keeping in close touch with representatives of both sides of the Council.

Mr. Shepherd: I thank my right hon. Friend for his interest in this matter. Can he speed up conclusions, because this system is degrading in the second half of the twentieth century and brings with it all the evils of insecurity?

Mr. Hare: My hon. Friend knows what I feel about this subject. I am doing all in my power to see that concrete proposals are brought forward, and I hope that a conclusion for London will not be too long delayed.

Youth Employment Service

Mr. Prentice: asked the Minister of Labour whether he will take steps to expand the Youth Employment Service so as to provide comprehensive vocational guidance for young people entering employment, and to ensure that it may continue to be available during their first few years at work.

Mr. Hare: The Service already offers vocational guidance and help to all young people up to the age of 18 or over 18 if still at school; and staffing levels are kept under regular review by the Central Youth Employment Executive. I do not think it appropriate to extend the scope of the Service beyond these age limits.

Mr. Prentice: Would the Minister agree that a number of young people try one job and then want to change to another and that they would benefit from advice during the early years of their working life? Should it not be his objective to convert this excellent service into something which provides for longer and more comprehensive training of young people in industry so that it can become a full-scale vocational guidance service?

Mr. Hare: What we want to do now is to improve the quality of the service for school leavers and those under 18 rather than to extend its scope. The hon. Member will realise what a great strain the service is working under, particularly in dealing with the bulge. It is our intention to improve the quality of the whole service; in particular the quality of the vocational guidance given.

Mr. K. Lewis: Will my right hon. Friend look particularly at youth employment liaison between one area and another to improve the links between youth employment officers in areas of high unemployment and those where unemployment is not so high?

Mr. Hare: I think my hon. Friend is right. This is exactly what I have in mind in trying to improve the quality of the existing service.

Retired Service Officers

Mr. Wingfield Digby: asked the Minister of Labour how many retired officers from the Services are now on his Department's books; and how many have been on them for six months or more.

Mr. Hare: At 31st March last 645 retired Regular officers were registered as unemployed, 322 of them for six months or more.

Mr. Digby: Is my right hon. Friend aware that—as these figures seem to indicate—retirement becomes a very anxious time for many officers because it is necessary for them then to find a job and they find that difficult on account of Service experience? Will he try to help them a little more in one way or another?

Mr. Hare: I shall try to help, but we have to look at this matter in perspective. I think my hon. Friend realises that since 1957 18,600 retired officers have registered with the Ministry of Labour. We have to keep in mind exactly how much has been achieved in placing the balance in employment. Of course, we must try to continue to help as much as we can, but, with the background I have given, I think my hon. Friend may see that the situation is not so bad as he thought.

Northern Region

Dr. Bray: asked the Minister of Labour how many unemployed boys and girls there now are in the Northern Region; how many there were on the same date last year; and how many have been placed in training schemes established by Her Majesty's Government in the course of the past year.

Mr. Whitelaw: On 10th June, 6,505 boys and girls were unemployed compared with 3,694 a year ago. Since June, 1962, 60 boys have commenced training in first-year apprenticeship courses at Government training centres. I understand that some 960 young people are also attending full-time first year apprenticeship courses or pre-apprenticeship courses at technical colleges in the region. The proportion of boys in the region entering apprenticeships continues to be well above the national average.

Dr. Bray: Is the Parliamentary Secretary aware that those places will cope with less than one-third of the rise in unemployment since this time last year? Is he aware that the situation is now so serious that emergency Government training and employment schemes are required? Is he aware that the kind of reply given to my hon. Friend the Member for Blaydon (Mr. Woof) simply will not do? Is he aware that, for example, in Middles rough alone 1,050 school leavers are joining the 600 already unemployed and the average period of unemployment that a young person can expect on Tees-side today is two terms before he gets a job?

Mr. Whitelaw: I do not think the hon. Member would expect me to agree that any answer I make personally will not do, but he has done me the courtesy of writing a letter, asking for a full report on this, and I shall certainly give it to him.

Mr. P. Williams: In view of the large number of young people who will be requiring a job in the near future, will my hon. Friend consider a request—or even an exhortation—to employers and trade unions in the area to combine together to take on supernumary apprentices to deal with this very human problem?

Mr. Whitelaw: My right hon. Friend will be very pleased to respond to that.

Clydebank and Kirkintilloch

Mr. Bence: asked the Minister of Labour how many youths and girls were registered as unemployed in the burghs of Clydebank and Kirkintilloch, respectively, at the latest available date; and what steps he is taking to place young people into suitable employment.

Mr. Whitelaw: On 10th June, 86 in Clydebank and 30 in Kirkintilioch. The Youth Employment Service is doing all it can to find suitable jobs for the young people.

Mr. Bence: Does the hon. Gentleman appreciate that in the Burgh of Kirkintilloch particularly, where there is an overspill agreement with Glasgow, this is likely to be added to considerably during the latter part of 1963? Will he do all he can to encourage employers to take on more apprentices?

Mr. Whitelaw: I accept what the hon. Member says. I think we have reason for some modest encouragement in that there were 361 school leavers in Clydebank and Kirkintilloch at Easter and of these only seven were still registered, for first employment in June.

9. Mr. Bence: asked the Minister of Labour how many men and women are registered as unemployed in the Burghs of Clydebank and Kirkintilloch, respectively.

Mr. Whitelaw: On 10th June, 1,425 men and 334 women at the Clydebank Employment Exchange and 312 men and 182 women at the Kirkintilloch Exchange.

Mr. Bence: This is far more serious; it is very serious indeed. Development is taking place in both burghs to reduce the labour force in respective industries, for instance, Singers at Clydebank. Will the hon. Gentleman keep in touch with other Departments of State, particularly the Board of Trade, to see what can be done to require industry to settle in Clydebank by getting a factory there which could employ the enormous surplus of labour?

Mr. Whitelaw: There is some satisfaction in the fact that, although the figures are higher than they were a year ago, they have fallen since last month. There is also encouragement in the measures being taken to improve the position. I shall see that the particular point made by the hon. Member is brought to the attention of my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade.

Fair Wages Resolution

Mr. Brockway: asked the Minister of Labour if the fair wages agreement, which requires recognition of trades


unions, applies to firms contracting with nationalised industries and services in the same way as is the case with Government Departments.

Mr. Hare: The Fair Wages Resolution applies only to contracts placed by Government Departments. I understand that it is the general practice of the nationalised industries to include clauses based on the resolution in their contracts. The resolution requires Government contractors to recognise the freedom of their employees to be members of trade unions. It does not require them to recognise trade unions.

Mr. Brockway: If Government Departments require the liberty of trade union membership and recognition, should this not also apply to nationalised industries and public services? Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that I have particularly in mind the firm of Securicor which has dismissed its trade union members at Slough, whose case I raised in this House on 18th December? As reported in columns 1078–9 of that date, the First Secretary of State gave my right hon. Friend the Member for Belper (Mr. G. Brown) and me assurances that trade union membership and recognition would be allowed. Is the Minister aware that these men are still victimised? Will he do something about it?

Mr. Hare: I remember well the case the hon. Member has referred to, but I think he also knows that the company has given a categorical assurance that it has not dismissed employees for the reason that they are trade union members

Mr. Brockway: It dismissed them all.

Mr. Hare: I have received categorical assurances that this is not so. This is the difference between the hon. Member and myself. As to compelling a particular company to negotiate with trade unions, that is not laid down in the Fair Wages Resolution.

Mr. Gunter: As there appears to be a conflict of opinion and evidence between my hon. Friend the Member for Eton and Slough (Mr. Brockway) and the Minister on this important and serious matter, will the Minister give an assurance that he will take immediate steps to look into it?

Mr. Hare: I can assure the hon. Member that I have looked very carefully into this. I looked very carefully into it when I answered Questions about it some time ago, and I naturally checked on what I have said here today. I have been fully informed on it and made the statement on that basis.

Mr. Brockway: In view of the unsatisfactory reply, I beg to give notice that I shall raise this matter on the Adjournment at the first opportunity.

Railway Workshops, Swindon

Mr. F. Noel-Baker: asked the Minister of Labour what instructions he has given to deal with redundancies at Swindon British Railways workshops which will affect boiler makers for whom other local employment is not available; and what discussions he has had with the men's trade union and the British Railways Board.

Mr. Hare: The full facilities of my Department are being made available to workpeople of all trades. Forty of the boilermakers at present under notice have so far sought our help and have all been offered employment locally. I am hopeful that the prospects for the others will prove as good. I have had no discussions with the trade union, but I am in close touch with the Railways Board.

Mr. Noel-Baker: I am grateful for anything the Minister can do. What kind of jobs have these men been offered? Secondly, is the Minister aware that these boilermakers have all been under the impression that their jobs were safe for at least another 12 months? When they got the news in the middle of June that they would be redundant it was a great personal shock to them.

Mr. Hare: In reply to the latter part of that supplementary question, there has been no variation in the scheme announced for the run-down at Swindon. In reply to the first part, these men will be employed on general engineering work, including machine operating and, possibly, panel beating. Probably the hon. Member knows the two firms which will be largely responsible for giving them employment.

Mr. Dance: Is my right hon. Friend aware that I have a similar problem in


Bromsgrove at a wagon works there, and that Sir Stewart Mitchell has been extremely good over the whole matter in that he has given every encouragement to these men to find other jobs and has endeavoured to ensure that they do not lose the benefits which they would have received from the railways if they had stayed with them for the full term?

Mr. Hare: It is true that the Railways Board are doing all they can to give as much prior notice as possible to men who will become redundant. A newspaper report, which the hon. Member for Swindon (Mr. F. Noel-Baker) has probably seen, gave a slightly wrong impression—namely, that people were given notice to terminate rather earlier than would normally have been the case. In fact, the redundancy will not take place before the time originally planned.

Industrial Training

Mr. Dalyell: asked the Minister of Labour how many men are being trained in all Government retraining centres; and what proportion of them are training in the skills of building.

Mr. Hare: On 10th June, 1963, which is the latest date for which figures are available, 1,998 men were attending Government training centres of whom 89 were being trained in building skills.

Mr. Dalyell: A figure of 89 out of 1,900 does not coincide with the hopes expressed by the right hon. Gentleman on 8th April as reported in column 931 of HANSARD. Why is this so?

Mr. Hare: We have been proceeding on the basis of providing very little training in the building trade until my new programme for extending adult retraining becomes effective. The reason is that there was considerable union opposition to it.

Mr. Prentice: Is it the Government's intention to expand training for skilled jobs in the building industry in their new programme of expanding Government training centres? Can the Minister give any estimate of the figures and when some of these courses will start?

Mr. Hare: I hope that when the full programme has been achieved we shall provide about 1,250 places for training in the skilled trades of the building

industry. That will allow for an output of about 2,500 people to be trained in one year.

Mr. Dalyell: asked the Minister of Labour how many men are retraining at the Government centres at Motherwell, Dunfermline, Glasgow, Dumbarton, Irvine and Greenock, respectively; and how many of these are being trained annually in skilled building trades.

Mr. Hare: None of these centres is yet open, but those at Dunfermline and Motherwell are expected to be ready for occupation by September next. When in operation the six centres will be capable of training up to about 450 men per year for employment in the building industry.

Mr. Dalyell: Should not facilities be dramatically extended above 450 in the light of the argument by the Secretary of State for Scotland that the unsatisfactory house-building rate in Scotland is due to bottlenecks in building?

Mr. Hare: As the hon. Member will realise from my Answer to his earlier Question, this is a very considerable increase in the training arrangements for people in skilled trades in the building industry. We may wish to extend it as time goes on, but it is a very marked increase on what has hitherto been done. Up to now we have had a great deal of objection from the unions.

Mr. Prentice: asked the Minister of Labour if he will make a statement on the progress of his consultations with trade unions and employers' organisations arising from the White Paper on Industrial Training; and when he expects to introduce legislation on this subject.

Mr. Hare: Consultations with the British Employers Confederation and the T.U.C. have enabled good progress to be made in preparing draft legislation. These consultations are to continue and discussions are also taking place with other industrial organisations and with employers' and workers' associations in individual industries. I hope to introduce legislation as soon as the Parliamentary programme permits.

Mr. Prentice: On the latter part of the Minister's reply, would he agree to make a more detailed announcement as soon as he can, giving as much information as he can? Will he bear in mind that


certain problems arise in industry because of the uncertainty of the timetable? Does he agree that unfortunately some employers are holding back their own training plans and waiting to see what the Government will produce? Therefore, the sooner the Minister can make a definite pronouncement on the timetable the better.

Mr. Hare: I share the hon. Gentleman's eagerness to have this Measure on the Statute Book. It will not be any fault of mine if it is unduly delayed. I obviously cannot say more on timing than I have said at the moment. As to employers who are holding back, I have already said in the House how foolish and wrong they are to take this attitude.

Mr. Hector Hughes: Does the Minister realise that this White Paper on Industrial Training is particularly relevant to places where there are industries involving high technical skills, such as Aberdeen with its shipyards and engineering shops? Will he say what advice he has sought from the local trade unions about local conditions relevant to the White Paper?

Mr, Hare: I am in full accord with the hon. and learned Gentleman's view about the importance of Aberdeen. However, he must realise that this is a national scheme and other Members of the House may think there are other places just as important as Aberdeen. That is not a subject on which I should like to have a debate. I can assure the hon. and learned Gentleman that we are discussing with both sides of industry and with individual industries how to implement the proposals put forward in the White Paper.

Mr. Dempsey: asked the Minister of Labour if he will have regard to the part-time courses already provided in technical colleges when inaugurating training courses envisaged in the White Paper on industrial training.

Mr. Hare: I have every hope that the training boards to be set up under the White Paper proposals will want to take full advantage of courses provided in technical colleges.

Mr. Dempsey: Will the Minister see that wasteful competition and duplication of services are prevented, if at all possible? With this type of training, is it the intention to train, for example,

redundant railway men, redundant steel workers, and redundant workers about to lose their craft work because of the technological revolution that has taken place in this country, so that they may be fitted into some other craft, and given employment?

Mr. Hare: Retraining will certainly come within the scope of these boards. In reply to the first part of the hon. Gentleman's supplementary question, one of the jobs of the boards will be to co-ordinate activity. There will be representatives of education as well as of both sides of industry represented on the boards and I hope that the sort of duplication and waste that the hon. Gentleman has in mind will be avoided.

Rotherham

Mr. O'Malley: asked the Minister of Labour how many men and women, respectively, were wholly unemployed, and how many were unemployed on at least one day a week, in the Rotherham Employment Exchange area at the latest available date.

Mr. Whitelaw: 739 men and 147 women were wholly unemployed on 10th June and 496 men and 12 women registered as temporarily stopped on at least one day in that week.

Mr. O'Malley: Would not the Parliamentary Secretary regard these figures as being extremely unsatisfactory? Is he aware that as a result of short-time working and under-employment in the Rotherham area the pay packets have dropped, it has been estimated, by as much as £2 a week in the last twelve months? What consideration has the Minister given to the implications of technological unemployment? Will he consider this as a matter of urgency so that unemployment and technical change do not go along as concomitants as they are at the moment?

Mr. Whitelaw: What the hon. Member said about technological advance is extremely important and I respond to it in that spirit. What he said about the position in Rotherham should be seen against the background of the fact that the unemployment rate there at present is 2·2 per cent. It is right to see it against that background.

Mr. O'Malley: asked the Minister of Labour how many boys and girls are at present unemployed in Rotherham; how many are expected to leave school in July; and how many school-leavers it is expected will be found jobs.

Mr. Whitelaw: Altogether, 144 boys and girls were unemployed on 10th June. It is expected that about 580 will leave school in July. Although the placing of the summer leavers may take a little time, we are hopeful that they will obtain employment without too great difficulty. The Youth Employment Service will do all it can to help them.

Mr. O'Malley: Does not the Parliamentary Secretary find this an unsatisfactory situation? Is he aware that the Youth Employment Service in Rotherham is finding, and has found in the last 18 months, increasing difficulty in finding jobs for these people who are unemployed? Will he take positive steps once again to see that the reduction in demand for young labour through technological change, particularly for young people of lower educational attainments, does not continue and that the situation is improved in the near future?

Mr. Whitelaw: I must again put the matter in fair perspective. I accept some of what the hon. Member said, but the truth is that, although there were 334 Easter school leavers, the number still registered for first employment in mid-June was 33. This shows that considerable progress has been made.

Coatbridge, Airdrie and Wishaw

Miss Herbison: asked the Minister of Labour what was the rate of unemployment at the employment exchanges of Coatbridge, Airdrie and Wishaw, at the latest available date and at the same time last year.

Mr. Whitelaw: Separate percentage rates are not available for these offices but the rate for the north Lanarkshire travel-to-work group, of which they form part, was 7·4 on 10th June compared with 5·7 in June, 1962.

Miss Herbison: First, is the Minister aware that it is highly unsatisfactory that we cannot get separate figures for unemployment in such a wide area an Lanarkshire? Secondly, is he aware that these figures show very clearly indeed

the great problems which are facing our people in these three areas? Will he do everything possible to bring to the notice of his right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade, in deciding where the new industrial estates must go, that these two areas—Airdrie-Coatbridge and Wishaw—are the two areas which have been worse neglected by the President of the Board of Trade in giving any new industry in the last 12 years?

Mr. Whitelaw: May I answer the three points in turn? The first concerned giving percentages for particular areas. I feel that this problem should be appreciated: if people travel from their home area to work they are counted as employees in the area where they work, but when they become unemployed they tend to register at the exchange nearest their home. This makes it difficult to calculate a percentage for a single exchange area where there is considerable travel-to-work, I am sure that the hon. Lady accepts that this is the case in north Lanarkshire, and from my own knowledge of the area I know that it is the case. It would be quite unrealistic to give separate percentage figures.
Answering her second question, I think that the hon. Lady knows very well of the many measures which the Government have taken to improve the position. She knows of advance factories which are planned for north Lanarkshire, in particular. In reply to the last point which she made, I have no doubt that my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade will note carefully what she said.

Miss Herbison: The Minister has missed the whole point of my supplementary question. As long as he refuses to give the separate figures and his right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade does not know where the highest unemployment in this very wide county is situated, how can the President of the Board of Trade decide fairly where this new industrial estate should go?

Mr. Whitelaw: I note the hon. Lady's point, but surely, in an area where there is substantial travel-to-work, it would be right to place any industrial estate in a position where it would draw people for employment from all over the area. After all, this is the purpose of it.

Shotts

Miss Herbison: asked the Minister of Labour what was the insured population in the area covered by Shotts Employment Exchange in the month of June in each of the years 1951, 1961 and 1963.

Mr. Whitelaw: The estimated number of employees was 9,443 in 1951 and 6,544 in 1961; I regret that the figure for 1963 is not yet available.

Miss Herbison: Surely the Minister must agree from the two figures which have been given that there has been a great fall in the number of insured workers in this area? Is he also aware that this is due to the fact that every colliery in the area has closed and that 12 years of the Tory Government have failed to provide employment in their own area for people who would like to live in an area which is famed in Scotland for its community spirit and its worth-while ness?

Mr. Whitelaw: From close personal interest in and knowledge of the area I can certainly agree with the last point which the hon. Lady made. She referred to the fall in the number employed. It is fair to remember that nearly two-thirds of this has taken place in coal mining, where there have been special difficulties, ft is also fair to give credit where it is due in this matter—and that is to the National Coal Board. For example, since 1962 530 miners of the 839 affected by closures have been found work elsewhere.

Factory Employees (Washing Facilities)

Dr. Stross: asked the Minister of Labour what information he has from his factory inspectors as to whether the provision of a supply of clean running hot and cold or warm water is now available in all factories.

Mr. Hare: The experience of the Factory Inspectorate is that compliance with this requirements of the Factories Act, 1961, is generally satisfactory.

Dr. Stross: In view of the importance of this requirement in preventing industrial dermatitis, will the Minister watch the situation and ensure that there is no falling off in compliance with this provision?

Mr. Hare: I certainly give that undertaking to the hon. Gentleman.

Industrial Dermatitis

Dr. Stross: asked the Minister of Labour whether, in view of the increasing number of complex chemical substances used in industry which cause irritation of the skin, he will make industrial dermatitis a notifiable disease, and issue a code of preventive practice embodied in regulations.

Mr. Hare: My Department receives comprehensive information about cases of industrial dermatitis giving rise to successful claims for industrial injuries benefit. Statutory requirements providing safeguards against dermatitis risks are included in the Factories Act and in particular Codes of Regulations. These are supplemented by detailed guidance of preventive measures given in advisory publications issued by my Department. I think that these measures offer the most practical way of providing safeguards against the incidence of this disease.

Dr. Stross: Is it not fair to say that, because of the complexity of the substances which are now in use and which are coming into use, the number of cases of industrial dermatitis tends to rise and that the consequent loss of productivity, loss of wages and suffering are very serious matters indeed? Does the Minister agree that at least one thing would help, namely, compulsory notification so that the right hon. Gentleman himself and the Factory Inspectorate would know just what the situation is?

Mr. Hare: I agree with the hon. Gentleman about the seriousness of this disease and its high incidence in industry. As the hon. Gentleman will admit, many things cause dermatitis. Some of the precautions advised, such as the maintenance of a high standard of personal hygiene, cannot be suitably imposed as statutory requirements. Therefore, we must draw a line as to where we can have compulsory codes of regulations and where we have to appeal to commonsense. I will certainly study what the hon. Gentleman has said.

Mrs. Slater: Is it not true that many new chemical substances are constantly


changing and different compositions are being used? Has not the time now arrived for his Department and the Ministry of Health to keep a watch on new substances and study their effect on health? Is not this the time to review the situation in regard to compulsory notification?

Mr. Hare: I assure the hon. Lady that we are constantly studying the problem. What she says is right: as new inventions come along, we get new complications. I do not think that anything that has been said today necessarily proves that we should take more compulsory action than we are taking at the moment.

Hackney and Holloway

Mr. Lipton: asked the Minister of Labour how many persons were at the latest available date registered unemployed at the Brook Green, Edgware Road, Hackney and Holloway exchanges; and what were the corresponding figures last year.

Mr. Whitelaw: As the Answer contains a number of figures, I will, with permission, circulate the information in the Official Report.

Mr. Lipton: Would the Parliamentary Secretary at least give the total figures for these four exchanges last year and this year?

Mr. Whitelaw: If I were to do that, I should be giving exactly what I shall give the hon. Gentleman in the Official Report. I will give one as an example. The figures for Brook Green are as follows: 2,892 in 1963 and 2,854 in 1962. The other figures are correspond-dingly all slightly higher than last year.

—
10th June, 1963
18th June, 1962


Brook Green
2,892
2,854


Edgware Road
2,824
2,395


Hackney
2,951
2,725


Holloway
2,710
2,357

Brixton

Mr. Lipton: asked the Minister of Labour how many persons were registered as unemployed at the Brixton ex-

change at the latest available date; and what was the corresponding figure last year.

Mr. Whitelaw: Two thousand six hundred and one on 10th June and 2,437 in June, 1962.

Mr. Lipton: Will the Parliamentary Secretary bring these dismal figures to the notice of the Colonial Secretary, who recently told the people of Malta that there were tens of thousands of vacant jobs in the south of England, which is certainly not true of the London area, where unemployment and housing shortages would certainly be aggravated if the people of Malta were so foolish as to follow the Colonial Secretary's advice?

Mr. Whitelaw: Whatever the hon. Gentleman may say, there is no doubt that in certain trades and in certain parts of London and the South-East there are vacant jobs which cannot be filled.

Employment (Scotland)

Mr. Small: asked the Minister of Labour how many redundancies among workers in Glasgow have been reported to his Department over the year up to the latest convenient date.

Mr. Lawson: asked the Minister of Labour how many redundancies among workers in Lanarkshire have been reported, to his Department over the year up to the latest convenient date.

Mr. Gourlay: asked the Minister of Labour how many redundancies among workers in Fife have been reported to his Department over the year up to the latest convenient date.

Mr. Steele: asked the Minister of Labour how many redundancies among workers in Dunbartonshire have been reported to his Department over the year up to the latest convenient date.

Mr. J. Robertson: asked the Minister of Labour how many redundancies among workers in Renfrewshire have been reported to his Department over the year up to the latest convenient date.

Mr. Hare: In the 12 months ending mid-June, 1963, 202 redundancies were reported in Glasgow, 66 in Lanarkshire,


32 in Fife, 20 in Dunbartonshire, and 53 in Renfrewshire affecting 10,169, 3,285, 2,378, 923 and 2,252 workers, respectively.

Mr. Small: Do not these figures show that it is a waste of time for skilled men to put themselves on to the Ministry of Labour's books? There have been 202 redundancies in my constituency. Within the last fortnight another closure in the shipbuilding industry has been announced. Consequently, there will be more redundancies to add to the figure of 202. This is an inexcusable waste of skilled manpower in the Glasgow area. Surely the Government have some plan to cope with this problem. These men do not serve their time merely to become ciphers on the Ministry's books.

Mr. Hare: I think that the hon. Gentleman misunderstood my Answer. I said that 202 cases of redundancy were reported, affecting 10,169 people in the Glasgow area.

Mr. Lawson: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that hon. Members on both sides of the House find it difficult to understand a long series of figures such as he has just given? As these were separate Questions, why could we not have been given separate information? Will the Minister bear in mind that those figures represent jobs that have disappeared? This is not merely unemployment. These jobs have disappeared. Does the Minister agree that, according to the information available, the number of jobs disappearing exceeds the number of new jobs appearing?

Mr. Hare: I thought it only right to try to answer the Questions in the way I did, not from any desire to be discourteous to individual Members of the House, but because there were a large number of Questions on the Order Paper. I thought it would probably suit the convenience of the House if I answered them in that way.
On the problems of Lanarkshire, which I know the hon. Gentleman had in mind, it has already come out in answer to Questions tabled by the hon. Member for Lanarkshire, North (Miss Herbison) that the industry most affected from the point of view of redundancy has been coalmining, with 1,200 workers affected. It is interesting that, since the beginning of

1962, closures or partial closures have affected 1,800 workers in the coalmining industry in Lanarkshire and over 1,100 of these have subsequently been redeployed in Scotland by the National Coal Board.

Mr. Gourlay: Is the Minister aware that to talk in terms of one or two new factories here or there will not solve this problem because the number of new jobs which, we hope, will be provided will not make up for the number of workers who are receiving redundancy notices? Is he aware, for example, that at the end of this week 750 of my constituents will be out of work because of the closure of the local linoleum factory? Will he treat this matter as one of great urgency and urge his local officers to deal with those who will become unemployed at the end of this week with special consideration and expedition?

Mr. Hare: I will certainly do all I can, and I am sure that my officers will do the same. As the hon. Member and the House knows, for I have said this repeatedly, there is no short cut to the solving of Scotland's unemployment problems. They can be solved only by the provision of more new jobs and this is the aim to which the Government are committed.

Mr. Steele: Would the right hon. Gentleman repeat, for my benefit, the Dunbartonshire figures?

Mr. Hare: Twenty in Dunbartonshire, affecting 923 workers.

Mr. Shinwell: Does the right hon. Gentleman not realise, arising out of these questions, that we are now being faced more and more with a quite new problem relating to unemployment; namely, unemployment which is attributable in the main to mechanical and technological changes? Would it be possible for the Minister to institute inquiries in order to provide clear figures to show the number of persons who have been thrown out of work during, say. the last twelve months, through technological change and rationalisation, and those who have been made unemployed as a result of ordinary trade recessions?

Mr. Hare: I will see if that can be done. The right hon. Gentleman is correct in saying that a part of these figures


for redundancy is due to what he describes as technological change. However, I am sure that he will also agree that another part of them is due to the fact that certain of our older industries are contracting in size.

Mr. Small: asked the Minister of Labour what was the increase in the number of male insured employees from mid-1959 to the latest available date in Great Britain and in Scotland, respectively.

Mr. Hare: The number of male employees, employed and unemployed, rose by 450,000 in Great Britain from mid-1959 to mid-1962 and by 3,000 in Scotland.

Mr. Small: Is the Minister aware of the differential which is shown in those figures, and should not something be done, having regard to the total of insured employees, to create more job opportunities in Scotland?

Mr. Hare: As I have said, I think that we are all resolved in this House to see that more new jobs are provided in areas of high unemployment, that is in Scotland, the North-East and else-where. The actions of the Government are geared to achieve that objective.

Mr. Grimond: Can the Minister give any idea of the number of people who have had to leave Scotland, apart from those registered as unemployed in Scotland, during this period?

Mr. Hare: I would be grateful if the right hon. Gentleman would put down that Question. It is not easy to give accurate figures of this sort but, if he will table a Question seeking the information, I will probably be able to give him some statistics which will be of assistance to him.

Mr. Gourlay: asked the Minister of Labour what was the increase in the number of female insured employees from mid-1959 to the latest available date in Great Britain and in Scotland, respectively.

Mr. Hare: The number of female employees, employed and unemployed, rose by 480,000 in Great Britain from mid-1959 to mid-1962 and by 35,000 in Scotland.

Mr. Gourlay: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that many female school leavers in Fife have managed to secure employment this summer only by travelling to the North of Scotland and taking jobs in the hotel industry? What steps does the Minister propose to take to ensure that there will be employment in Fife for these girls when they return at the end of the holiday season?

Mr. Hare: Fife is one of the areas which I hope will benefit from the plans the Government have set in being. I think that there is some comfort to be gained from the fact that there is less disparity between the increase in the number of female employees in Scotland and in Great Britain as a whole than that for males.

Miss Herbison: Is the Minister happy in the knowledge that young girls aged 16 are having to leave their mining villages and seek work in the Isle of Man and elsewhere? Should he not be doing something more to find work for these young people in their own home towns so that, at these young ages, their parents can exercise some influence over them?

Mr. Hare: I can assure the hon. Lady that I shall never be satisfied with this sort of happening. It is to ensuring that more local employment is made available in areas of high unemployment that the actions of the Government are being directed.

Annual Report

Mr. Lawson: asked the Minister of Labour when he proposes to publish the 1961 Annual Report of his Department.

Mr. Hare: The hon. Member and the House will recall that in December, 1961, I announced that the publication of the Ministry's Annual Report was to cease.

Mr. Lawson: I must confess that I do not remember that statement having been made. Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the feeling I had when I looked for this document was that the Ministry was too ashamed to publish this Report? Since we are all anxious for this kind of information to be supplied, particularly hon. Members who represent Scottish constituencies—so that we may know something about what


the right hon. Gentleman's Department is doing, how it is behaving and what it is achieving—will the Minister consider this matter afresh and, perhaps, publish these Reports again?

Mr. Hare: When I made my announcement I think it was agreed that it was a sensible thing to do. The main topics previously covered in the Ministry's Annual Report have been dealt with in the Ministry of Labour Gazette. The hon. Member may also like to know that I am intending to make a report on the major trends in industrial relations at reasonable intervals. I am thinking of my responsibilities under the Conciliation Act and Section 13 of the Industrial Courts Act. I am considering making these major trends available from time to time, and it so happens that I think that the end of this year would be an appropriate time to publish these details. It will be seen, therefore, that the House will not be losing any information.

Resettlement Transfer Scheme

Mr. Steele: asked the Minister of Labour how many Scottish engineering craftsmen have been assisted under the Resettlement Transfer Scheme over the past three years to find employment in England.

Mr. Whitelaw: In the three years ended 31st May last, the totals were 439, 220 and 147, respectively.

Mr. Steele: Would it not be much better to provide jobs in Scotland rather than to incur the expense associated with resettlement and bringing workers south of the Border?

Mr. Whitelaw: There can be no doubt that it is the policy of the Government to increase growth in Scotland rather than to encourage emigration of this sort. However, I am sure that it will be agreed by many people that for many years Scotsmen have left Scotland to go to all parts of the world, with valuable results to those parts of the world as well as to Scotland.

Mr. Ross: asked the Minister of Labour how many workers from Scotland over the past three years have been assisted under the Resettlement Transfer Scheme to find employment in England.

Mr. Hare: In the three years ended 31st May last, the totals were 1,697, 1,244 and 505 respectively.

Mr. Ross: Does the fact that there has been a decrease mean that the situation in Scotland is so much better?

Mr. Hare: No, and the hon. Member knows that.

Young Persons, Scotland

Mr. Ross: asked the Minister of Labour what proportion of his youth employment offices in Scotland reported difficulties in the placing of boys in suitable employment; and what advice he gave to those so reporting.

Mr. J. Bennett: asked the Minister of Labour what proportion of his youth employment offices in Scotland reported difficulties in placing girls in suitable employment; and what advice he gave to those so reporting.

Mr. Hare: All youth employment offices in Scotland report regularly on the employment situation. Where there are particular difficulties in a specific area we are, of course, kept informed. In general, more difficulties have been reported in placing boys than girls. The position is kept under regular review by me and by my Scottish Youth Employment Advisory Committee.

Mr. Ross: What does the right hon. Gentleman mean by"kept under regular review", because the situation in regard to young people is getting worse and worse while the Government, according to the latest Report of the Estimates Committee on the Local Employment Act, are doing less and less? What does the right hon. Gentleman propose to do about it?

Mr. Hare: Of course, we want to do more, but I think that the hon. Member will agree that this matter must be kept in perspective. To say that the Government are doing nothing, which is what his remarks implied, is absolutely unfair. The hon. Member should know that out of 16,302 Easter school leavens the number of those unemployed has been reduced to 549. Our object is to get those 549 boys and girls into employment.

Miss Herbison: Will the right hon. Gentleman come to Scotland and see for himself?

Mr. J. Bennett: In view of what has been said by my hon. Friends about unemployment generally in Scotland, particularly the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member far Lanarkshire, North (Miss Herbison) and my hon. Friend the Member for Kirkcaldy (Mr. Gourlay) about young girls being forced to leave their homes and seek work elsewhere, providing a constant worry to their parents, has the right hon. Gentleman nothing to say about what is to be done to reverse this trend and create more jobs in Scotland?

Mr. Hare: I cannot say more at the moment than I have already said to the hon. Member and his hon. Friends. The Government have embarked on a considerable programme of expansion and this will help towards solving the unemployment problem, which worries me as well as the hon. Member.

Mr. Prentice: Is the Minister aware that his replies to my hon. Friends would be more convincing if it were not for the fact that for the first quarter of this year more industrial development certificates were issued for the Midlands than for the whole of Scotland? What is he doing to discuss this matter with the President of the Board of Trade in an effort to get this trend reversed?

Mr. Hare: This matter has certainly been brought to the attention of my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade. He will do all he can to further the policies of Her Majesty's Government to provide more employment in areas of high unemployment.

Railway Workers, Scotland

Mr. Dempsey: asked the Minister of Labour what plans he has to find employment for redundant railway workers in Scotland.

Mr. Hare: Arrangements are already being made at both local and regional level to make the full facilities of my Department available in advance of redundancy to all railway workers who seek our help.

Mr. Dempsey: I regard that as a very poor statement, because the facilities of the right hon. Gentleman's Department may continue to be made available but we are still not getting the additional

jobs Scotland needs. Will the Minister get down to the problem of framing a blueprint of phased employment development to ensure that railway workers who become redundant in Scotland, and particularly in Airdrie, will find jobs available for them and not pie in the sky?

Mr. Hare: As I have already said, it is the object of Her Majesty's Government to provide more employment in Scotland. I hope that the hon. Gentleman is not trying to decry the work done by my Department, all of whose members are doing their very best in very difficult circumstances to look after people. As to the hon. Gentleman's general thesis, he will know that if the plan is implemented the reduction would be about 5,000 jobs. The anticipated wastage during this period is about 4,800 jobs. I cannot tell more precisely, nor can anyone else, what the actual redundancy is likely to be until these individual closure proposals are investigated by the Transport Users' Consultative Committee.

Building Workers, Scotland

Mr. W. Hamilton: asked the Minister of Labour how many building trade workers are currently unemployed in Scotland; and what was the corresponding figure for last year.

Mr. Hare: At 10th June, 1963, 13,511 workers whose last employment was in the construction industry were unemployed in Scotland, compared with 10,723 a year earlier. For skilled building trade workers, the numbers wholly unemployed were 1,665 and 1,198 respectively.

Mr. Hamilton: How can the right hon. Gentleman explain the logic of an economic system in which Scotland has the worst housing position of the whole of Western Europe, with every local authority clamouring for more schools yet the Government refusing to let local authorities get on with the building, while at the same time we have thousands of building workers on the dole?

Mr. Hare: The answer is that we have to train more skilled building workers if the building industry in Scotland is to be able to cope with the very large programme of public investment—which, I hope, will be followed by private investment—in the whole sector of the Scottish economy. That is why I am producing


a plan very considerably to increase the number of skilled workers to be trained for the building industry.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: Does the Minister of Labour realise that many of these unemployed building workers are living in slum houses or overcrowded houses? If so, does he not think that there is something wrong in such a system?

Mr. Hare: The hon. Gentleman, who is very fair on these matters, will realise that we will not be able to get the unskilled workers employed until more skilled workers are available. This will be the problem.

Mr. Hamilton: How long has the Minister and his hon. Friend been in office?

Mr. Hare: The hon. Gentleman is well aware of that information without my having to give it to him.

Mr. J. Bennett: asked the Minister of Labour how many Scottish building trade workers have been assisted under the Resettlement Transfer Scheme over the past three years to find employment in England.

Mr. Whitelaw: In the three years ended 31st May last the totals were 57,33 and 29, respectively.

Mr. Bennett: Is the Parliamentary Secretary aware that in this respect I am becoming, like Alice in Wonderland,"curiouser and curiouser"? The hon. Gentleman will be aware that the Scottish Office has an ambitious programme of new schools, hospitals, industrial building, etc.; by what mental gymnastics does he intend to fulfil that programme while transferring workers to the South?

Mr. Whitelaw: The hon. Gentleman should first of all appreciate that there is a very considerable programme of construction building work in Scotland. Secondly, it is very dangerous to generalise about figures of construction workers unemployed without breaking the figures down into trades. If hon. Members did that, they would find that already in Scotland there is, or is likely to be, a shortage of bricklayers. If there is a shortage of bricklayers, it is very difficult to employ many of the other skilled trades. It is because of that that

my right hon. Friend is stepping up the training of skilled workers in order to cover all the trades concerned.

Mr. Steele: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that he can go to any building site in London and find that half the bricklayers speak with a Scottish accent, and that if he would advise his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland to get on with building we could employ those bricklayers in Scotland?

Mr. Whitelaw: I should not like to dispute with the hon. Gentleman who speaks with a Scottish accent and who does not. It still remains a fact that, if we are fully to employ all the skilled building workers there are in Scotland at present, we have to make sure that there is not a shortage in one of the particular trades concerned.

North-East

Mr. P. Williams: asked the Minister of Labour what was the total of unemployed in the North-East at the end of June; how this figure compares with that of 12 months ago; and what percentage rate it represents.

Mr. John Hare: On 10th June—the latest date for which figures are available—the total was 52,480, or 4·5 per cent., compared with 39,121 or 3.4 per cent. on 18th June, 1962.

Mr. Williams: Can my right hon. Friend tell me how many of these people are likely to find jobs as a result of the Government's programme of bringing in new industry? Can I now ask my right hon. Friend in person whether he, as Minister of Labour, will issue an exhortation to employers and trade unions to take on supernumary apprentices to cope with the problem of school leavers which will come before us in the very near future?

Mr. Hare: My hon. Friend—and we work closely together—has already given that undertaking, and I will very willingly do so, too.

Shipyard Workers, Govan

Mr. Rankin: asked the Minister of Labour how many shipyard workers were employed in Govan in 1953 and in 1963.

Mr. Whitelaw: There were 9,333 in May, 1953, and 5,581 in May, 1963.

Mr. Rankin: Do not those figures awaken the hon. Gentleman and his right hon. Friend, and the Government, from the sleep in which they have been indulging? Can the hon. Gentleman say what is being done to try to do something for the tremendous number of persons who have been thrown out of work as the result of the decline of the shipbuilding industry in Govan?

Mr. Whitelaw: The hon. Gentleman is very well aware of the £30 million scheme to help ship owners recently announced by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Transport to finance new orders. To that, there has been an encouraging response—

Mr. Rankin: rose—

Mr. Whitelaw: —and the hon. Gentle-had better remain in his place, because I have more to say.
The industry must do all in its power to make itself competitive with foreign shipyards. My right hon. Friend has established a joint working party to work out practical proposals for improving the industry's relations and competitive ability. This working party is making progress though, my right hon. Friend must say, not as rapidly as the urgency of the situation demands.

Mr. Rankin: Is the Parliamentary Secretary not aware that the £30 million scheme was only announced about a month ago, and that it has taken nearly ten years to accumulate those 4,000 unemployed in Govan? What was he doing before the £30 million scheme was introduced?

Mr. Whitelaw: Much consideration has been given to improving the position of the shipyards, but the hon. Gentleman will be the first to appreciate that this is a worldwide problem of supply and demand.

Oral Answers to Questions — MR. HAROLD PHILBY

The following Questions stood upon the Order Paper:

51 and 56. Lieut-Colonel Cordeaux: To ask the Lord Privy Seal (1) if he will state the nature of the reply sent by him to the inquiry from the Observer newspaper on 28th February

1963, concerning the whereabouts of Mr. Philby;

(2) by what authority an official of the Foreign Office urged the Observer newspaper to employ Mr. Philby; and whether his department or the Observer newspaper took the initiative in this matter.

52. Mr. A. Lewis: To ask the Lord Privy Seal on what date or dates Mr. Philby himself admitted that he worked for the Soviet authorities before 1946.

55. Mr. Wade: To ask the Lord Privy Seal what assurances and recommendations were given to the editor of the Observer and the editor of the Economist by the Foreign Office before Mr. H. A. R. Philby was employed by them as a correspondent in the Middle East.

57 and 61. Mr. Grimond: To ask the Lord Privy Seal (1) what information was given by his Department to the Observer and other papers as to the suitability of Mr. Philby as a correspondent in the Middle East;

(2) what evidence he has that Mr. Philby has been living outside British legal jurisdiction for the last seven years.

64. Mr. A. Lewis: To ask the Lord Privy Seal, in view of the Foreign Office's request for the resignation of Mr. Harold Philby as a security risk in 1951, why they advised his appointment with the Observer in 1956.

The Lord Privy Seal (Mr. Edward Heath): Mr. Philby's name was given by the Foreign Office to the Observer in 1956 as a former journalist who was seeking employment. In reply to inquiries about him, the Foreign Office based itself on the statement made in the House of Commons by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, then Foreign Secretary, on 7th November, 1955. The Foreign Office acted in this matter on the authority of that ministerial statement.
The Observer was also informed that the circumstances in which Mr. Philby was asked to resign from the public service made it highly unlikely that he would ever again be employed in any


work involving access to official information. As I told the House on the 1st of July, he has had no such access since 1951.
As to the Observer's inquiry on 28th February, 1963, the foreign editor of the Observer was given the same information as I gave the House on 20th March, in reply to a Question from my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Nottingham, Central (Lieut.-Colonel Cordeaux) concerning the whereabouts of Mr. Philby.
It was shortly before his disappearance on 23rd January, 1963, that Mr. Philby admitted that he worked for the Soviet authorities before 1946 and had warned Maclean, through Burgess, that the security services were about to take action against him.
During the seven years before his disappearance Mr. Philby is known to have been living outside British jurisdiction, having made his home in Beirut. He paid a number of visits to the United Kingdom during that period. He is also believed, in the course of his journalistic activities, to have visited territories under British jurisdiction in the Middle East.

Mr. A. Lewis: The Lord Privy Seal has now admitted that Mr. Philby has been here at least on two occasions. Why did the right hon. Gentleman say that he had not been within British jurisdiction, when he was entertained here in London? If the right hon. Gentleman will look at the Daily Sketch of last Friday he will find that it seems to have more information than the Foreign Office. Why was it that only yesterday the deputy-editor of the Observer said that at no time had that paper had any inquiries made of it officially by M.I.5. or anyone working for M.I.5? Why not?

Mr. Heath: As I said in my original statement a week ago, Mr. Philby had lived outside British jurisdiction. I stated today that he made his home in Beirut and was domiciled in the Lebanon. I have also said today that he made visits to this country and also, in his journalistic activities, to some colonial territories in the Middle East.
As for the last supplementary question, it would not have been appropriate, in inquiries made about Mr. Philby, to have made inquiries from the newspapers.

Mr. Grimond: Does the right hon. Gentleman not think it rather strange that, when, as we have been informed, the file has been open during all these years, and inquiries have been going on, the Observer was encouraged to take on Mr. Philby and employ him in Beirut? Can the right hon. Gentleman tell us when it was suspected that Mr. Philby was a possible agent? Why were no inquiries made of the Observer and why did the Lord Privy Seal say that during the last seven years Mr. Philby has been living outside British legal jurisdiction? Surely the point was that he was not available for questioning, otherwise what was the point? Did the right hon. Gentleman know that during that time Mr. Philby had visited Britain and had been within the jurisdiction and could have been available for questioning?

Mr. Heath: Mr. Philby was recommended to the Observer in 1956 on the strength of a statement made to the House of Commons that there was no evidence against him at that time. [Hon. Members:"Why?"] I am coming to that point. He was recommended because it was thought not unreasonable, and, indeed, wise, at that time that he should be in employment. [Hon. Members:"Why?"] There is a difference between the reason why he was asked to resign in 1951 by the then Foreign Secretary, because of his previous association, and the question of employment with a newspaper. It was thought, as the then Foreign Secretary stated in the House of Commons in 1955, that there was no evidence against him, and that it was not unreasonable that he should be employed by a newspaper. For that reason, it was put to the Observer.
As for the second part of the question with which the right hon. Gentleman was concerned, I was aware that Mr. Philby had made his home in Beirut. The point about the legal jurisdiction was that it was possible to reach conclusions, as a result of the admissions made by Mr. Philby, only at a time when he was living outside British legal jurisdiction. He did not return to this country between that time and the time he disappeared. I was not aware of the details of his return to this country during the course of his journalistic conferences with his papers.

Mr. Wall: Would my right hon. Friend make quite clear who took the initiative in finding Mr. Philby a job? Was it the Foreign Office or the Observer.

Mr. Heath: The Foreign Office took the initiative with the Observer, The Observer took the initiative with the Economist.

Mr. Grimond: I am greatly obliged to the right hon. Gentleman, but did he know when he answered Questions last Monday that Mr. Philby had visited this country at least twice?

Mr. Heath: I stated very clearly that I was not aware of the details of his return to this country.

Mr. Biggs-Davison: Since the Observer and the Economist have considerable attention paid to them, particularly, perhaps, overseas, may we now hope that since Mr. Philby must have influenced their judgment on the Nasserite régime there will be an agonising reappraisal of their Middle East views on the part of these two journals?

Mr. Heath: It was a question for the two papers employing him to judge his work and its value to them. It was entirely within their competence and for them to decide whether he should continue in their employment. It will be seen from the Observer yesterday that it discussed in great detail the quality of his work while he was employed by the newspaper.

Mr. G. Brown: Will the right hon. Gentleman answer this extraordinary position? The Foreign Office asks a man to resign for reasons which had to do with his past political associations. Why did the Foreign Office then take the initiative to get a newspaper to employ him in the Middle East? The Foreign Office is not normally an employment agency. Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this sort of thing is bringing out in the open a lot of things which as a rule ought to remain not discussed in the open? Why did the Foreign Office do this?

Mr. Heath: There seems to be a slight contradiction in the right hon. Gentleman saying that these matters ought not to be discussed in the open and then asking me directly why the suggestion

was made about Mr. Philby. I ask the right hon. Gentleman, who has certain experience of these matters, to recognise that fact.
After Mr. Philby was asked to resign in 1951 by the then Foreign Secretary, because of his previous associations, there was a period in which he had some employment, arranged presumably by himself. In 1955, the then Foreign Secretary stated that after a thorough examination of this matter no evidence had been found against Mr. Philby and, therefore, no charge of any kind was brought against him.
In these circumstances it was thought not unreasonable, and, indeed, in some circumstances, as perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will now recognise, wise, that it should be suggested that he should resume his previous journalistic employment. For that reason an approach was made to the Observer.

Dame Irene Ward: While detesting Communism, may I ask my right hon. Friend whether he thinks that in this free world, for which at the appropriate time many Communists fought, nobody who had Communist leanings at any time should ever be able to earn a livelihood again? Would my right hon. Friend like me to outline in the House the number of Communists appointed by right hon. Gentlemen opposite when they were in office?

Mr. Heath: I think that my hon. Friend is referring to the point which I was trying to make—that there is a difference between the reasons for which Mr. Philby was asked to resign, owing to his previous associations, and which surely are not incompatible with employment on a newspaper if the proprietors so decide, and the question of his security risk in Government employment where he has access to secret information.

Mr. G. Brown: Is the Lord Privy Seal aware of what he is now saying? The only interest of the Foreign Office in this man being employed by somebody so that he could work in the Middle East could have been a Foreign Office interest. What was that Foreign Office interest? Was it that he should be available for work that he had been doing before, which was security work? Why should the Foreign Office put itself out,


when a man had been asked to resign because he was not regarded as security-worth-while, and ask somebody else to employ him to go back there to do security work; and subsequently, when he was found out not to be security worth-while, why should not the Foreign Office accept responsibility?

Mr. Heath: The right hon. Gentleman is not entitled to draw the conclusions that he has just drawn. In any case, he will not expect me to make any further comment upon conclusions of that kind.

Mr. Burden: My right hon. Friend gave the House to understand, I believe, that the abilities of this journalist were assessed by the newspaper that employed him, but surely their assessment of his value and of his ability was coloured by the fact that he was suggested for employment by the Foreign Office.

Dame Irene Ward: Rubbish.

Mr. Burden: I do not believe that is rubbish. Is it not dangerous for the Foreign Office to suggest to newspapers that any particular journalist should be given employment? Is this proper behaviour?

Mr. Heath: No suggestions were made by the Foreign Office about the quality of Mr. Philby's work, or his capacity for carrying out journalistic tasks. What the Foreign Office did was to suggest his name to the Observer, and it was always the responsibility of the Observer—[Interruption.] I am dealing with my hon. Friend's question. It was always the responsibility of the Observer and the Economist, or whoever else employed Mr. Philby, to make a judgment about his work. If my hon. Friend casts his mind back to the time of these episodes he will recollect that one of these newspapers took the view that Mr. Philby had been somewhat unfairly treated in that at the time when there was no evidence against him he was unable to secure employment.

Mr. M. Foot: Can the right hon. Gentleman tell us whether the statement he made a week ago about Mr. Philby was because of the Government's ingrained preference for complete candour, or was there a less evident reason for it?

Mr. Heath: I made the statement to the House because all the possible conclusions had been reached in this case, and I thought it right to tell the House at that time what those conclusions were. It is for similar reasons that I have answered these Questions after the normal Question hour today.

Mr. Gordon Walker: The right hon. Gentleman has told us that Mr. Philby made his admission just before his disappearance, presumably last January. Could he explain why, on 20th March, he told the House that he had given the House all the information in the Government's possession? Did he not know about this admission at that time, or was he not giving us all the information in his possession?

Mr. Heath: I can give the answer to that one very easily. The Question asked by my hon. and gallant Friend who asked Question No. 51 today concerned the whereabouts of Mr. Philby. If the right hon. Gentleman looks at my Answer he will see that I gave all the information that we had at the time about Mr. Philby's whereabouts. It was later than that that we gained further information about the suggestion that he might have gone behind the Iron Curtain. As the work on this particular case was still being carried on, it would, in any event, have been quite inappropriate for me and not in the national interest to have given such other information as we had.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: We cannot debate this matter now without a Question before the House. [An Hon. Member:"It ought to be debated."] That may be, but not now.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE (SUPPLY)

Ordered,
That this day Business other than the Business of Supply may be taken before Ten o'clock.—[Mr. Redmayne.]

WELSH AFFAIRS

Tourism in Wales and Monmouthshire, being a matter relating exclusively to Wales and Monmouthshire, referred to the Welsh Grand Committee for their consideration.—[Sir K. Joseph.]

Orders of the Day — SUPPLY

[24th Allotted Day]

Considered in Committee.

[Sir William Anstruther-Gray in the Chair]

Orders of the Day — CIVIL ESTIMATES AND SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATE, 1963–64

Motion made, and Question proposed.
That a further sum not exceeding £25 be granted to Her Majesty, towards defraying the charges for the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1964, for the following services connected with Housing and Urban Land Prices, namely: —

Civil Estimates and Supplementary Estimates, 1963–64



£


Class VI, Vote 1, Ministry of Housing and Local Government
10


Class VI, Vote 1, Ministry of Housing and Local Government (Supplementary Estimate)
5


Class VI, Vote 3, Housing, England and Wales
10


Total
£25

HOUSING AND URBAN LAND PRICES

3.45 p.m.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Housing and Local Government (Mr. F. V. Corfield): This is the first opportunity that we have had to debate housing since the publication of my right hon. Friend's White Paper in May. It is an opportunity that we welcome.
Although I do not assume that the purpose for which the Opposition chose this subject was to be entirely laudatory, I hope that we shall start from the agreement that we all recognise that the home, in the broadest sense in which that word is used, still remains the anchor of a healthy society. But I would hope, also, that we would agree that the provision of decent housing is not the only factor involved, and that it will be accepted that in reviewing the past, the present and the future it is necessary to do so against a background of priorities covering a very much wider field.
As to what these priorities are, there are bound to be differences of view, but if we are to devote more of our resources to housing we must devote less to something else, and it is incumbent upon those who criticise to be as precise about where they would cut as about where they would increase.
I think that the Opposition will also be concerned with the record of the past as well as the policy for the future. I think that it is right, therefore, to remind the Committee of the very formidable success that has been achieved. Between 1st November, 1951, and 31st May of this year the number of permanent houses built in Great Britain has been over 3·4 million, which, together with approximately 1 million built under the Socialist Government, means that about 27 per cent. of our total housing stock has been built since the war. In addition, as the White Paper points out, about 670,000 houses have been improved with the aid of grant and, no doubt, many others without. But there remain formidable problems, and we certainly have no wish either to minimise them or to disguise them. The White Paper faces them squarely. But whatever criticism the Opposition may be impelled to level against the record of the past, I think that they will have a formidable task to show that they either would or could have built more houses.
The achievements of the last 12 years rest very largely on the fact that we were able by 1953 to exceed the target figure of 300,000 houses per annum, whereas the Opposition must remember that in 1951, during the General Election, and despite all the pressures that are general on those occasions to show their party at the best advantage, the best that they could forecast—and I am quoting the Prime Minister of the day in his broadcast of 20th October—was:
We cannot at present go beyond 200,000".
I suggest to right hon. and hon. Members opposite that they will need some ingenious arithmetical juggling to prove that they could have hoped to make up that deficit of the earlier years by improving substantially over the 300,000 in later years so as to reach the same overall totals.
On the other hand, when we face criticism, as I have no doubt we shall,


with regard to the distribution of houses between local authorities and private builders, we face here a genuine clash of opposing philosophies. I am not exactly sure where the party opposite stands on this matter today, but for our part we firmly believe that the function of subsidised local authority housing is to provide for those who, in the absence of subsidy, genuinely cannot afford to provide decent housing for themselves.
But whether a house is built for letting by a local authority or for owner-occupation by a private builder, it fulfils a housing need. It cannot seriously be contended that the need for a house becomes any less urgent because the prospective occupier cam afford to meet the cost. That is not, of course, to say that we do not recognise that much more remains to be done in the local authority field, especially in regard to slum clearance and in the areas where great pressures have forced market prices beyond the range of income groups which, in other parts of the country, can afford to compete.
As paragraph 43 of the White Paper makes plain, the public authorities' share of the housing programme has in recent years increased, is increasing and will continue to increase. But in looking to the future the factor that dominates the scene is the substantial rise in the rate of increase of our population and the rapid change in its pattern. With people marrying and starting families younger, living longer and, rightly, aspiring to higher standards, the number of households has increased between 1951 and 1961 by 12·1 per cent. against a population increase of 5·3 per cent.
So, as paragraph 10 of the White Paper points out, over the next 20 years 125,000 new houses a year will be needed merely to keep up with the growth of households. In addition, there remains a serious overall shortage of houses in certain areas, in particular London and the other conurbations, and a formidable problem of slum clearance.
It is against this background that we have set our sights at reaching a rate of house building of 350,000 houses per annum as rapidly as possible. I do not think that that figure has been seriously challenged, either by right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite or by responsible commentators in the Press, or in the

professional journals, either as unrealistic on the one hand or over-modest on the other, but no doubt we shall see during the course of the debate.
This expansion of the total annual housing programme to at least 350,000, including a local authority programme of up to 150,000, produces a vast housing programme by any standard. 350,000 houses equals the number of dwellings in Birmingham and Solihull together as shown at the 1961 census, and at an assumed cost of £2,500 per dwelling, it constitutes an annual investment of £875 million. To achieve this we need greater output from the building industry if we are also to sustain the other large programmes of construction, on the one hand on schools, hospitals and roads and on the other on the factories and offices needed to provide employment for an expanding population.
With this aspect of the matter my right hon. Friend the Minister for Public Building and Works dealt comprehensively in our last Supply debate on 2nd May. But my Department also has an important contribution to make. Our aim is to get maximum efficiency from the clients' end of the operation by planning housing programmes on a scale sufficient to gain the benefits of factory production, and to this end we are urging the formation of groups of local authorities to operate on a larger basis than is possible for any single individual authority. Two such groups have already been formed. There is a Yorkshire development group comprising Sheffield, Leeds and Hull and a Midlands housing consortium consisting of ten neighbouring county boroughs. Other groups are beginning to emerge.
We are encouraging, too, the adoption of standard dimensions for ceiling heights, windows, and so on, and the standardisation of components, as well as the adoption of factory systems of building. At the same time, we are undertaking research into various lightweight systems of construction; houses based on these methods have already been built in Steven age and Sheffield, and there are further projects under way.

Mr. R. J. Mellish: The hon. Gentleman is arguing in favour of large groupings of local authorities for the building of houses. I do not think


that many of us on this side of the Committee would quarrel with that. However, that being the policy of the Government, can the hon. Gentleman explain why the Government are, at the same time, pushing forward a Bill which is designed to smash up the London County Council, which is already the biggest housing authority in the country?

Mr. Corfield: The hon. Gentleman knows quite well that the London boroughs will be very much larger than the existing metropolitan boroughs and that the Greater London Council will also have housing responsibilities on an even bigger scale than the London County Council.
We have further agreed to guarantee local authority building programmes for up to five years in areas where the worst problems are so that the councils can have the maximum advantage of continuity and long-term programmes.
Hitherto, total housing construction has been almost exclusively divisible into local authority houses and houses built by private enterprise for owner-occupation. The great gap has been in the provision of private enterprise houses to rent. No doubt there are a number of reasons for this—the cost and difficulties of management, the need or the desire to turnover capital and the relative attraction of building for sale in conditions of continued demand from prospective owner-occupiers; and this latter is something to be welcomed.
Indeed, it is a matter for satisfaction, though not for complacency, that we have now reached a stage where 6·8 million houses, or more than 40 per cent. of the total stock, are in owner-occupation. By American standards, where, I understand, the figure approaches 60 per cent., we have still some distance to go, but we have certainly made progress. We have very nearly doubled the proportion since the end of the war. But there will always, of course, be a demand for houses to rent by people who can well afford to pay an economic rent.
Whatever the other reasons for the reluctance of private enterprise to embark on any substantial contribution towards making good the deficiency in houses to let, the party opposite must bear a considerable part of the blame

for the major deterrent, which is its continued dedication to the reimposition of rent control. I do not deny for one moment that there are cases where landlords have exploited the housing shortage or demanded exorbitant rents and inflicted great hardship on tenants. This is an evil, but this sort of activity is not typical of landlords.

Hon. Members: Oh.

Mr, Corfield: I can assure the Committee that in my correspondence I have many cases brought to my attention, and by no means all of them by hon. Members on this side of the Committee, where rent control is shown to inflict severe hardship, i.e., severe hardship on owners, and particularly small owners. Over and over again I hear of people who have invested their savings in a house for their retirement and cannot now claim possession.

Mr. Mellish: But this is minimal.

Mr. Corfield: There are others whose sole source of income is that from a house bought many years ago and which barely meets the cost of maintenance. I really can assure the Committee that hardship is not all one way. The evil from bad landlords, of which I have been speaking, is not a general evil. Recontrol must be looked at not only in the light of its efficacy as a remedy for this particular evil, but also in the light of the ramifications that it is likely to have over the housing situation as a whole.
Neither control nor decontrol as such increases the number of houses, but there is a good deal of evidence to the effect that control reduces, and is always likely to reduce, the supply of houses to rent. Before the Rent Act was passed it was becoming the almost invariable practice for landlords with vacant properties to sell rather than relet. [Hon. Members:"They are doing it now."] Hon. Members opposite say that they are doing it now. The most detailed surveys to hand show that this happens only at the most with one out of five properties. Four out of five are relet.
It is very easy for hon. Members opposite to talk generally and vaguely about a fair rent, but it is a very different matter to devise a formula for determining it that will encourage, rather than


discourage, the maintenance of existing private capital in housing, let alone attract more. This is surely what we have to do. It is, of course, with that end in view that the Government attach so much importance to the proposed new third arm in the organisation of housing—the housing association, the housing co-operative, and the Housing Corporation.
As the Committee will recall, Section 7 of the 1961 Act made available £25 million for cost rent housing schemes. The response has been encouraging, although inevitably an incentive such as this takes time before it is reflected in firm plans, let alone in houses on the ground. But I am happy to state that my latest information shows that 42 projects from 23 housing associations, involving 2,430 dwellings and loans amounting to nearly £9 million, have so far been approved.
The new Housing Corporation will have £100 million available, under the White Paper proposals, from which it will lend about one-third of the amount required by housing associations on loans for up to 40 years. It is expected that the building societies will lend the rest for a similar period. Of course, £100 million is a considerable sum, and it will go a lot further than helping to provide an initial £300 million worth of housing because, after a while, the money will recirculate and be available again for more investment in more housing associations. The Housing Corporation can, we believe, be a most important institution, not only helping the growth of the housing association movement but also contributing to the development of new systems and raising standards of design and materials.
We hope, too, that, together with the provisions of the Finance Bill, it can give a further impetus to the co-operative type of housing association in which the tenants and the members of the association are the same people. Under this type of scheme, the tenant secures many of the advantages of owner-occupation, except that should he wish to move the dwelling remains the property of the association, of which he ceases to be a member, and he is repaid the contribution he has made.
I want now to turn to the question of the provision of land and land prices.

Mr. Frank Allaun: Whilst we are in no way opposed to housing associations, may we ask the hon. Gentleman to tell us what rate of interest the associations will have to pay on the loans? Will it be the market rate? If so, they will be no better off than anyone else.

Mr. Corfield: Yes. The market rate.

Dr. Jeremy Bray: On a point of order, Sir William. The Parliamentary Secretary has referred to a recent survey which indicates, he said, that one in five houses only is resold. If he is quoting from a document, should not that document be laid before the House?

The Chairman: I did not hear the Joint Parliamentary Secretary quote anything. I heard him give a figure, as I thought, in summary.

Mr. Mellish: Further to that point of order, Sir William. The Parliamentary Secretary made the point that he could give certain figures in consequence of a recent survey. My hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough, West (Dr. Bray) is right to ask whether there is such a survey and to suggest that, if the hon. Member is to quote from it—as he has done—we should have it before us so that we can take it into account and check that what the hon. Gentleman is saying is correct.

The Chairman: I did not recognise what the Joint Parliamentary Secretary said as a quotation.

Mr. Corfield: I was quoting from the Donnison Report, which has been published and is, as far as I know, in the Library. I will send the hon. Member for Bermondsey (Mr. Mellish) a copy if he has not got one. We recognise that hon. Members opposite have different views on rates of interest and about differential rates. No doubt all this will be raised during the debate, and my right hon. Friend will deal with it at the end. At the moment, I want to deal with the question of the provision of land and the price of urban land which, I understand, is the second main topic which the Opposition wish to discuss.

Mr. George Brown: The hon. Gentleman was asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Salford, East (Mr. Frank Allaun) whether these housing associations would have to borrow at the market rate. I heard the right hon. Gentleman the Minister say to the hon. Gentleman,"Say yes". Will the hon. Gentleman please tell my hon. Friend that?

Mr. Corfield: It will be the Treasury rate, but it is not expected that it will differ markedly from the market rate.
I do not wish to intrude into the time of the debate longer than necessary, but I want to deal with the land problem. The corollary of any housing programme is the provision of the necessary land and that, of course, remains a function of planning, which is briefly referred to in paragraphs 28 to 30 of the White Paper. But it is quite clear that an increasing population, demanding higher standards not only in housing but in schools, hospitals, factories, offices, open spaces and roads, and so on, must exert a very considerable pressure upon land.
So, too, does the vast increase in car ownership, which is estimated as likely to be doubled by 1970. Indeed, sub stantial acreages are already devoted to the motor car in one form or another, and more will clearly be required in future.
Basically, what determines where people want to live is their work, and exactly where they live depends on the communications with their place of work. In turn, the location of new industry depends in large measure upon the network of national communications, and new links in that network are, again, largely dictated by the need to link up existing or growing industrial and commercial centres. These are considerations which cut right across the boundaries of existing local planning authorities. It is necessary to look at these problems in the much wider context of the region, rather than of the local planning authority, and to ensure that regional plans themselves dovetail into a cohesive national plan. This is the purpose of our regional studies, which will provide the framework or skeleton on which local planning authorities will build and fill in the details for their respective areas.
I know that many hon. Members on both sides would wish to go further in the development of this regional planning concept by setting up formal regional planning authorities. There are various approaches. I am bound to say that nearly all of them do seem to me to present difficulties, although no doubt they also have advantages. I have no doubt that many will have their advocates this afternoon.
At this stage, I only wish to remind the Committee of two points which I regard as of overriding importance. The first is that planning at this level not only requires a very high degree and wide variety of skills, but also very close co-ordination between a number of Government Departments—not only my Ministry, but also the Board of Trade, the Ministries of Transport, and of Power, and of course the Treasury. Secondly—and I hope that the Committee will agree—a very considerable degree of local responsibility for local planning is essential and vital to the life of local government. Against these considerations, I submit that the system we have been following—of regional studies, carried out by the central Government and subsequently discussed with and implemented by local planning authorities—has a very real advantage.
I want to turn now to the question or the price of land. Not only, of course, have we got all these demands for land, but they are demands which, by and large, are particularly concentrated in certain parts of the country and, in themselves, underline the need in those same areas to preserve land for green belts and open spaces.
In many areas there is still no shortage of building land, though in the areas of pressure in and around the conurbations, and in the Midlands and the South-East generally land prices are high; in many cases they are very high.

Mr. Frank Allaun: They have been since 1959.

Mr. Corfield: That is the inevitable operation of a free market with a buoyant demand facing a position of static of even shrinking supply. As I understand it, this is the basic issue which divides the Committee.
A free market and competing pressures increase the cost of development and of


course that is particularly noticeable in developments of an obviously social character such as housing, education and hospitals. But that is not the whole story. There is the powerful magnetism of the great cities, which is responsible for the greatest pressure on land and, therefore, for the highest prices. It is a social-cum-economic phenomenon common to all the advanced countries in the world. Much as we may deplore its side effects, as a general proposition I cannot see that we contribute to the solution of this problem by cheapening land in the very areas where it is imperative to discourage rather than to encourage further concentration.
Whatever our pricing system, and whatever our planning system, if we are to preserve anything of our incomparable countryside I submit to the Committee that building land should always be regarded as a precious commodity, to be husbanded with the utmost care. A situation in which economic forces reinforce planning control in ensuring that the land is used to the maximum advantage is not entirely without its merits. Conceding that there are disadvantages in high prices of land for housing, schools and hospitals, it is not enough merely to advocate change.
It is also necessary for the Opposition to show that any alternative scheme, which may be the star to which they have hitched their wagon, is workable and has advantages which outweigh its disadvantages and that it will produce overall a more satisfactory system than the present one. In my submission, so far, the Opposition have failed to do this and we shall listen with interest to what is said by hon. Members opposite today.
As I understand their policy, it combines a proposal to secure land cheaply with a form of"betterment" whereby, to quote from" Signposts for the Sixties":
the community obtain the benefit of the future rise in the value of land".
The first stage in the operation, apparently, would be for a Land Commission to purchase land which it is proposed to develop, and presumably the selection of the land would remain with the planning system. The second stage would be the granting of a lease. Indeed, the

whole basis of these proposals appears to rest upon a leasehold system.
I think that hon. Members opposite will agree—I hope that they will—that leaseholds will have to be of a fairly long duration, particularly in respect of commercial and industrial land. In the first place, only a long lease will attract a developer. In the second place, industrial and commercial firms often have to build to their own requirements and must have security of tenure to make it worth their while. On occasions they must be prepared to expand or change with changing techniques.
Finally, they will have in mind that it may be necessary at some stage that the undertaking should be sold as a going concern, or combined with other undertakings in similar trades. It is, therefore, difficult to see how, certainly in the commercial or industrial sector, this system of leasehold can conceivably be maintained in an expanding economy, unless the leaseholds are long, readily transferable and probably extendable. In other words, there will have to be a free market in leaseholds. And leaseholds, especially long leaseholds, are subject to exactly the same market pressures as are freeholds.
Moreover, the terms of the lease, according to the pamphlet, are to ensure that the community obtains the benefit of the future rise in the value of the land. But the value of the land increases as soon as planning permission is granted, or, under the scheme envisaged by the Opposition, as soon as the purchase is made by the Land Commission. It increases to the current market level for the type of land and the type of development in question. If this increase, as presumably is the case, is to be included in that which is to enure to the community, there can be no difference in the price of land to the user compared with what it is under the present scheme.
Similar arguments apply to land used for private housing but here again, as I see it, there seem to be further complications. Private houses change hands very much more frequently than do commercial or industrial premises. Indeed, it is the essence of owner-occupation that there should be no restriction on resale. Few of us, when we buy our first or even our second house, can guarantee that it will


be either possible or desirable to stay put for the rest of our lives.
If, under the Opposition's scheme, the Land Commission is to help by
leasing plots of land to small owner-occupiers an especially favourable terms
there will have either to be a restriction on resale, or any increase in value will accrue not to the community, but to the owner. The only difference will be that it will be a larger increase in value by the amount by which the sale by the Commission was less than the true value.
It should be borne in mind that the price on resale will be dictated by the general position of supply, and the general position will be set by the vast stock of existing houses which inevitably for many years ahead will vastly out-number those built under the scheme.
As I see it, the second problem which arises is that whatever the merits of the leasehold system it is simply not consistent with owner-occupation as we know it today. Nor, to all appearances, is it readily reconcilable with the pledge which, I understand, has been given by the Leader of the Opposition to introduce the compulsory enfranchisement of leaseholds. As I have already reminded the Committee, hitherto houses built since the war have been divided almost exclusively between local authority houses and houses built for owner-occupation.
There is no reason to suppose that there will be a rush of private developers into the renting market if these proposals are combined with a threat to reimpose rent control. There is also no reason to believe that the increase in owner-occupation has come to an end, or that it will not continue to increase to probably something in the neighbourhood of the proportion prevailing in the United States.
The owner-occupied sector is very large and I suggest to the Opposition that it does not make sense to rest a plan for land prices on a leasehold system and then tell us that the owner-occupier will be entitled to his freehold and, at the same time, benefit by lower prices, which, again we are told, can arise only under a leasehold system. Either the Opposition do not believe in owner-occupation, in the sense that the owner-occupier owns the freehold—in which

case it does not make very much sense to talk about the enfranchisement of leaseholds—or they do believe in owner-occupation in the current meaning, and are concerned, in their Land Commission and leasehold scheme, only with local authorities and those unlikely private developers in the letting market under a system of rent control.
I sincerely hope that hon. Members opposite will make their position clear during the debate.
The Opposition's proposals for undeveloped land, most of which will be agricultural, appear to be merely to acquire compulsorily at a price lower than the market value and to pocket the difference for the State. Is not what they are proposing really a system of taxation?
We have to look at these proposals in the light of the proposition that land once acquired will, as to its future value, enure to the benefit of the community. As I see it, terms which ensure that this happens can only mean one of two things, either a levy on resale or a periodic review of ground rents. If it is to be the former, I hope that we shall be told whether it is proposed that the whole of the profit element is to accrue to the community, whether allowance will be made for the fall in the value of money in the meantime, and whether account will betaken of the fact that the vendor may well have to rehouse himself in the sector of the market represented by existing houses as at today, which, of course, by definition, are out of this scheme and will be subject to the free play of the market. If, on the other hand, the proposal is for a periodic review of ground rents, we ought to be told how this differs in effect from the rating of site values, to which, so I have always understood, the party opposite is opposed.
If all that the Opposition are anxious about is that the increase in value should accrue to the State, they have merely to use the rating system, divorce the increase in value due to the buildings from that due to the land, and insist on a rate of 20s. in the £. That, I submit, is the effect of what they propose, and I hope that they will bear it in mind when they next accuse us of being insensitive to the rise in the rate burden.
I believe that over the past 12 years we have a fine record in housing. I


welcome wholeheartedly the Leader of the Opposition's wish, stated during the weekend, to fight the next election on that record. I am confident that the White Paper points the way to still further advances which are both substantial and realistic. I admit that they lack the spectacular. There are no rash promises by my right hon. Friend to cure the housing situation by the next election. I concede that in some areas and in some spheres land prices raise difficult problems, but I do not believe either that the disadvantages are all one way or that the ideas cherished by the Opposition can do other than create far more problems and far more anomalies than those which they set out to cure. As they say themselves in Signposts for the Sixties:
Since John Stuart Mill made his proposals
for the public ownership of building land,
a series of partial attempts have been made to tackle the problem—all of them unsuccessful. It is now clear that public ownership of building land is the only way…
The sole argument that this represents a way, let alone the only way, rests on the fact that, hitherto, the country has had the sense to reject it.

4.24 p.m.

Mr. Michael Stewart: The Parliamentary Secretary, having elected to open the debate, has, as we expected, told us something about the contents of the Government's White Paper. In view of the fanfare with which the White Paper was greeted on publication, I rather thought that the Government would have decided to choose a day of their own. time on which to expound the White Paper, particularly as it means very little unless there is to be a good deal of legislation based upon it, and we are to some extent inhibited, on a Supply day, in discussing legislation. However, the Government were not keen enough on their own White Paper to give any of their own time for it, and we are glad enough that they should have some of ours.
It would have been a very promising White Paper if it had been presented to Parliament at the outset of a new Government's term of office instead of at the end of an old and exhausted Government's term of office. Here is a series of ideas. Here are things most of which

cannot be put into operation until legislation is passed. The operation of them cannot, in fact, begin in this Parliament. Here, then, we have rather more of an election manifesto than a serious statement of Government policy. This conclusion is reinforced when we note that the actual contents of the White Paper are in every case modified echoes of things which other people have been telling the Government for the past six or seven years.
A target—perhaps that is too definite a word—an estimate is given of how many houses ought to be built per year in the coming years. Our main comment about that estimate is that it is substantially more than we are building at present and, as we now learn from the Parliamentary Secretary, a big proportion is to be houses provided by local authorities. That is exactly what we have been telling the Government for a good many years, that the total of building was not sufficient and that their present policy of steadily cutting down the number of council houses was one which ought to be reversed. Now, in the last stage of this Government's life, we are told that, at last, it is to be reversed.
The second proposal is for the setting up of a Housing Corporation. The interesting feature of that proposal is this. The Government make proposals to help owner-occupation. They make proposals for more council houses. They make proposals for the repair of old houses. When they come to the provision of rented accommodation by any agency other than the public authorities, they say nothing whatever about the provision of rented accommodation by ordinary private enterprise working for profit. They have, at last, reached the conclusion, which we have been rubbing into them for some time, that it is no good nowadays relying upon private enterprise working for profit to provide rented accommodation at rents within the means of most of the population.
In essence, the Housing Corporation proposal is—I do not use the adjective in any unfriendly sense—a philanthropic solution. The idea is that there will be enough people found throughout the country to do the organising work in getting the houses built, managing them, and arranging for their letting, and doing this not for profit. I hope that


the Government will be able to find them, but I think that it will be quite a job.
The Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs (Sir Keith Joseph): Of course, the hon. Gentleman will have seen the sentence referring to the fact that the Housing Corporation will have paid officials at the centre and paid officials also in the regions to help to organise the housing societies which are to be formed.

Mr. Stewart: I do not dispute that. It is interesting to see how much propping up from the public one needs to get even the semblance.

Sir K. Joseph: Not propping up.

Mr. Stewart: Well, the Minister said that they would be paid for out of public funds. Even so, he must know that his policy depends on finding a considerable number of people prepared to work on these associations not for profit. I earnestly hope that they will be found. We know that there are many admirable people prepared to help, but it must, surely, be accepted that there is now an admission on both sides of the House that it is no good relying on private enterprise working for profit to provide rented accommodation. I shall show that some significant consequences flow from this.
The Government say something about the review of subsidies. We have been telling them for a long time that the provision from public funds, from the Exchequer, to local authorities to meet their housing responsibilities was not sufficient. Although there may be differences in our view of how the subsidies ought to be applied, it seems that, at the end of the White Paper, the Government themselves come to the conclusion that more subsidy help will be needed for local authorities. Once again, better late than never.
The fourth and last proposal mentioned is that steps should be taken to repair and modernise older houses. The essence of this proposal is to be met by increasing activity on the part of local authorities, backed up by compulsion, if necessary. It looks almost as though Ministers have been secretly attending meetings of a local Fabian Society. It

has registered with the light hon. Gentleman at last that the whole attempt by rent decontrol and improvement grants to get the main body of private landlords—I readily admit that there are admirable exceptions—to keep houses in decent repair and bring them up to date has failed, and we have to rely on the public authority.
In essence, we have a White Paper composed of modified versions of advice that other people have been giving to the Government, requiring legislation and not likely to be operated in the present Parliament. I would not go as fair as the Estates Gazette, which, after examining the Minister's White Paper and referring to the famous Hans Andersen tale,"The Emperor's New Clothes", concluded, choosing its words, I must say, very tactlessly:
The Housing Emperor is standing there stark naked".

Mr. Dingle Foot: Wearing a mask.

Mr. Stewart: The Estates Gazette went on to make certain suggestions as to what he was wearing, which, for reasons of decency, I shall not repeat to the Committee.
Without going as far as that, we must ask, first, how far this White Paper meets the needs of ordinary people today, and, secondly, how far is it framed to meet the needs of the very startling future that lies ahead of us—the future of 60 million people in this country by the early 1980s and, perhaps, 70 million at the and of the century.
When I come to examine that second question and its relevance to the needs of the future, it will be necessary for me as for the Parliamentary Secretary, to say something about the price and use of land. Let us look, first, at how far this White Paper and policy meets people's present needs. We can most of us gauge people's present needs by taking a cross-section of the letters that come to us from our constituents, day after day and week after week. First, there is the need of the very many families who want simply to escape from slums, from filth, or, if not as bad as that, from overcrowding and constant restriction of life.
One could still find a case—there was a case in a metropolitan juvenile court


very recently—of nine human beings occupying one room. There are the far more numerous cases of families who, some years ago, may have had just adequate room, but who now, with the growth in the size of the family or the mere increase in the age of the children, find that their whole pattern of life is intolerably cramped and see no way of getting out of it into more spacious or appropriate accommodation. What is the situation there?
In paragraph 11 of the White Paper, we are told that the slum clearance programme, which began eight years ago and which was supposed, in effect, to finish the job in ten years from when it began, is now to extend over another ten years, and even at the end of that time the problem will not be solved in the more obstinate districts. On the question of shortage, the White Paper, in paragraph 8, estimates the present immediate shortage of houses as between 500,000 and 1 million, yet in 1959, four years ago, the National Housing and Town Planning Council estimated the shortage then as 500,000.
The situation certainly has not got better by this measuring rod in the last four years. It is difficult to reconcile that with certain advertisements appearing in the Press at the moment, stating that already the housing shortage has been greatly relieved. The significance of these figures is this: there is room for argument, as to how far this figure of 350,000 is a realistic figure. It is difficult to give a precise answer, because it depends on how much potential improvement can be found through the use of new building methods, and that, I agree, is still an uncertain question.
In a few years, we may be able to take a more optimistic view, but it would be unwise to take it now. Whatever view is taken on that, there can be no doubt at all that 350,000 houses, even if it is the very best that we can hope to reach in the near future, will not be enough for a long time to come.
Building at that rate means that the demand for houses will be well in excess of the supply for a long time. Two things follow. First, in view of that desperate imbalance in demand and supply, the Government must look again at the question of rent control. If they

look back at their own speeches when the Rent Act was passed, they will see that it was passed on the assumption that before long supply and demand for housing would equate at a reasonable figure.
This estimate of 350,000, as against our real needs, shows that there is no prospect of that in the foreseeable future. The other thing that follows is that we must accept the proposition that a bigger proportion of the national effort has to be devoted to housing in the future than in the past. The Parliamentary Secretary posed the question: if you have more houses, what do you have less of? I think that the hon. Gentleman is sufficiently an economist to know what is the real answer to that question.
The hon. Gentleman could have put that question to the country at any time during the last 50 years. If anyone had said in 1900 that we ought to be devoting a greater proportion of our resources to housing and had been asked,"What does that mean we shall have less of?" the answer is surely, and in any growing economy must be, that we do not get more housing during the next 10 or 20 years literally by sacrificing the things that we have now. We sacrifice the things that might otherwise have been produced during the next ten or twenty years, and it is the essence of the problem that we cannot define precisely what they are because they are the result of new inventions and new discoveries.
If it will satisfy the Parliamentary Secretary I wild say this: if we did, as a nation, decide deliberately to have substantially more housing over the next 20 years than we are contemplating, it would mean that during those next 20 years that part of the rise in the standard of life which is reflected by luxuries rather than things like housing would not show so rosy a picture. We should at the end of those 20 years have more houses and fewer luxuries. What those luxuries are, neither I nor anyone else can say. But they would be the kind of things that would be produced in the next 20 years. [Hon. Members:"Oh."] If hon. Members opposite do not understand this they had better apply their minds to it, because this is essential to the whole problem.
One of the questions that the Government must ask themselves immediately is: can we see that as few resources as possible are devoted to any kind of building that has not the urgent social necessity that good housing has? There may not be all that to be made out of that, but it is the question that ought to be asked and is not asked in the White Paper.
Then we have to ask: for whom are these 350,000 houses to be built? The Parliamentary Secretary suggested that the argument between building by local authorities for rent and building by private enterprise for sale was an argument between the political ideologies of both sides. Whatever it may have been in the past, what it is now surely is an argument which must be deduced solidly from the facts of the situation, which are these.
The slum clearance programme is proceeding barely fast enough to keep pace with the creation of new slums by the passage of time. If we are serious over the clearance of slums, we must demolish more houses per year than we are demolishing at present. An increase in the rate of slum clearance—and the Minister has talked of doubling or trebling it—means that a greatly increased number of people with incomes well below average need to be rehoused. If we are greatly to increase the number of people with below average incomes who need to be rehoused, it follows inescapably that we must tilt the balance more towards the provision of council houses to let. In the end the Parliamentary Secretary accepted that when he gave a figure which meant an increase of nearly 50 per cent. in the number of council houses to let.
We should note what a reversal of policy that is. Between 1952 and 1962, the proportion which capital formation in housing bore to the gross national product remained the same at about 3½ per cent. In 1952, 2½per cent. was in respect of council houses. By 1962, that 2½per cent. had shrunk to only 1¼ per cent. It had been cut to half. That is the procedure which must be reversed. If it is to be reversed, we must provide greater financial assistance to the local authorities and take into account in calculating that financial assistance the burden of interest rates upon them.
The Minister has objected previously that if we do anything to enable local authorities to borrow money for housing at a favourable rate of interest we"distort the economy". I cannot accept that phrase. We are simply ensuring that more houses are built than otherwise would be the case and pursuing a deliberate use of Government policy to that end. That is one of the things for which Governments are there.
To build more we must also consider the problems in the building industry itself, which I will touch on only briefly or I shall detain the Committee for far too long. It seems to me that the Government have missed an opportunity in the Housing Corporation which they create. To my mind, the interesting part of the idea of a Housing Corporation is that of deliberate action by the central Government in housing. The Government restrict the Housing Corporation to the comparatively limited field of the pro-vision or help in the provision of houses to rent at rents ranging between £4 and £7 a week, or, as the Economist unkindly called it,
a driblet of high-cost housing.
That is, perhaps, an unnecessarily unkind phrase, although it may be necessary to remind the Minister that this is only a very small part of the problem.
If the Minister wanted to create a body of this kind, I should have thought that he could have given it powers to develop building research and to apply the results of research by building itself so as to be a pioneer in the application of new methods of building. He should not be content, as the Parliamentary Secretary said, with urging local authorities to come together in consortia to facilitate the giving of the right kind of orders to the building industry. One of the jobs of such a corporation might be the deliberate formation of such consortia of local authorities. I think that we need a more positive direction from the centre than either the White Paper or the Parliamentary Secretary suggested.
Another function which the Housing Corporation should have is that of itself granting loans on mortgage to would-be owner-occupiers. I think that we must accept that favourable rates of interest, which we propose, should apply not only to local councils building houses to let


but should be available also for mortgage loans to would-be owner-occupiers. The nation as a whole must accept that housing all along the line ought to be a subsidised service.
The odd thing is the way that the nation is being gradually pushed to that conclusion by the logic of the facts. The council house tenant is subsidised. The owner-occupier is partly helped through the Income Tax allowances on his mortgage. The owner of rented property is helped, to some extent, by improvement grants. The very poorest, paradoxically, are helped to pay their rent by the National Assistance Board. One group remains to which no help at all is given, namely, the uncontrolled tenants of private landlords.
We must give up being unwillingly pushed by the logic of the facts into recognising that housing should be a subsidised service all along the line. We should recognise that fact and deliberately decide the most economical methods of distributing that help through help to the finances of local authorities for them to build houses to let, for loans at cheap rates to owner-occupiers and for the provision of help for the modernisation of old houses. The sooner we give up pretending that in a perfect world housing would not be a subsidised service, and recognise the logic of the facts, the sooner we shall get the matter straight.
What I have just been saying arose from consideration of the needs of people who want to get out of slums and overcrowded dwellings. What about another kind of need, the need of people who have enough room but who are never certain how long they will be left in enjoyment of it? They may receive letters such as that which one of my hon. Friends gave me recently addressed to one of his constituents. It reads:
We write to inform you that we have received instructions from our clients that it is desired the flat which you occupy is to be sold. We are instructed to give you the first offer to purchase same.
The means of the person to whom this letter is addressed make that offer completely nugatory. She is an old lady. What this letter means to her is that all her security has gone. That kind of

thing is happening time and again. It is one of the effects of rent decontrol.
The Parliamentary Secretary argued the virtues of rent decontrol. He spoke about the hardships which people suffered.

Mr. Corfield: Mr. Corfield indicated dissent.

Mr. Stewart: The hon. Gentleman did. He began to paint the most heartrending picture of people who suffered because there was some control left.
I want to ask this very serious question, and I hope that the Minister will answer it: what is the extent of the faith of the party opposite in decontrol? It has power under the Rent Act to decontrol any dwelling by order, whatever its rateable value. In the unlikely event of the Conservative Party winning the next election, would it use that power and decontrol any more houses? It will be agreed, I think, that the House of Commons and the country are entitled to know the answer to that question before the election takes plase.

Mr. Arthur Lewis: Is my hon. Friend aware that before the last election the late Aneurin Bevan asked the Government to give a pledge? They gave the pledge and when they returned to office they immediately broke it. We cannot trust the pledge of this Government.

Mr. Stewart: It was in the 1955 election that the Government gave a pledge not to introduce legislation about rents at all, which, as is well known, was deliberately broken. The facts about that are not in dispute. What I am asking now is: what sort of pledge are the Government prepared to give about not carrying rent decontrol any further?
One of the evils of rent control is the way in which it encourages certain people to regard a house solely as a source of income to its owner and nothing else. I have here a document called"The London Property Letter" which is circulated to businessmen. Under a subheading"Fulham—Boom area for Speculators" its states:
The London Property Letter takes a close look at this fascinating…district…(e.g. Victorian house near Wandsworth Bridge Rd"—


not one of the most fashionable areas in London—
showing four-year record of appreciation from £1,800 to £6,500).
The letter goes on:
The London Property Letter answers the all-important question: what opportunities are in it for you?
That is the kind of morality which rent decontrol and the general tenor of Conservative policy in so many directions over the last 12 years has produced.
We had it strikingly illustrated even in the sober columns of yesterday's Sunday Times, in the article on Peter Rachman. There was somebody who had found out how to combine inflaming race relations with the skilful use of existing legislation about rent control and decontrol in a way that showed neither compassion, decency nor any regard for the public welfare. The article was well entitled
The life and times of Peter Rachman",
because these things did not happen simply through the villainy of one man but through a situation created by Government policy and the general tenor of Conservative propaganda. Land and housing should be wholesome commodities to give benefit to human beings. The Government's policy, like the hand of a diseased King Midas, at its touch can convert those things into gold and corruption.
Another thing that people need is that the home in which they live should be kept in decent repair, should be maintained properly and, if they are ambitious, should be brought up to date. The White Paper suggests that there shall be certain powers to bring in amenities and the like; the tenant can ask for them. I wonder whether the Government realise what the effect of rent decontrol is on tenants who think of asking for improvements. The Minister told us in answer to a question the other day that he was not aware that tenants were frightened of being turned out of their homes and, therefore, did not ask for improvements. It is astounding that the Minister should be so unaware of how so many of his fellow citizens live.
There is the question of those who need and want to become the owners of their own homes. This is linked with the provision of land and with the problems

of the future, to which I referred at the outset of my speech. If we are to deal with the 60 million people who will be here in 1982, we have to consider where the land is to be. That means that we must have a real policy for the dispersal of industry and for the creation of new towns.
We shall shortly welcome into the House of Commons the new hon. Member for Deptford. His arrival will be not only a commentary on the remarks of the Joint Parliamentary Secretary about the Government being judged on their record, but, in view of who the new Member for Deptford is, will be a reminder of the great work of his father, Lord Silkin, in creating 14 new towns during the difficult period after the war. Without that, it would have been totally impossible to deal with the housing problems of the great cities. Without further effort on that scale, we shall never solve the problems of our growing population.
Now, however, when land is made available, when it is announced that new houses are to be built here and there, the moment that decision is taken a great increase is planted down in value on the land. The Joint Parliamentary Secretary said that these fantastic increases in land values are not to be found everywhere. The trouble is that when the Government go around doing what they call making land available, the land profiteering follows them around.
Not long ago, the Government—and a very proper decision, I have no doubt, it was—decided to set up a paper and pulp mill near Lochaber, in Scotland. Fort William Town Council is now paying ten times as much for ground for house building as it was a year ago. That kind of thing has happened in the Lea Valley. It will happen everywhere the decision is made. That means that if we try seriously to solve this problem and make land available, we hang round the neck of the housing programme a totally unnecessary subsidy to landowners by the mere decision that the land should be used for building. A great bag of gold is handed to somebody who has done nothing for it.
The problem has become so serious that its existence is admitted in a leading article in The Times. The Times admits the seriousness of the problem, rebukes both sides of the House of Commons for


their attitude towards it and fails to inform us. what the right answer is. In substance, however, The Times urges us on this side to have second thoughts and urges the Government to have some thoughts at all. The Parliamentary Secretary has not followed that advice. He was happy to leave the situation as it was. In his view, anything that might be done would only make the situation worse.
In essence, what we are proposing is this. It is accepted that the development of the country gives these totally unearned gains to certain people. The problem is whether that increase in the value of land, or a reasonable part of it, can be get into the public purse so that some of it will be available for public purposes.
Our proposal is that when land comes to be built upon it shall pass into public ownership. The first objection is that that means confiscation. That is like saying that a farmer who makes provision to ensure that the birds do not rob newly-sown land is confiscating from the marauders something to which they are justly entitled. It is not so. We are simply saying that we will not have a situation when land which at present is worth a certain figure cannot be got to serve a public purpose without paying ten, twenty or, sometimes, thirty times its present price.
The argument of confiscation cannot stand. We are proposing that the land should be bought at a price somewhat above its present use value, but at nothing like the inflated values that now follow. That view is sensible and its morality is fully justified by the fact that it is a public decision that creates the increased value.
Once the land is acquired, the job is to lease it. Sometimes, it would be leased on a purely commercial basis. The Parliamentary Secretary seemed to think that that must mean that if the land is leased to a commercial developer, not for housing, but for some other purpose, a certain bargain is struck with him and, after that, the unearned profits would go into his lap instead of the landowner's.
Why not have a rent revision clause in the lease? Why not make an arrangement such as is proposed between local authorities and developers of city centres

in a pamphlet called"Change and Challenge", published by the Conservative Political Centre? If the Parliamentary Secretary has doubts about the workability of this, I commend the pamphlet to him. I commend also some of the advice that the Ministry itself has given to local authorities about the arrangements which they can make for private developers of publicly-owned land in city centres.
This is not an insoluble problem. Sometimes, the land would be leased to a local authority and for a public social purpose—housing. In that case, I presume, a bargain would be made with the local authority which would simply bring back to the Land Commission substantially what it itself had had to pay to acquire the land. The gain would, as it were, be passed on through the Land Commission to the local authority.
Then there is the question of leasing land to private persons for the building of houses. We have said, incidentally—and both the Parliamentary Secretary and the Minister in commenting on our proposals have neglected this—that where the proposed development is simply that of a man building a house for his own occupation, our proposals do not bite on that at all. So that bogey has no substance.
I turn to the question of a private developer getting a lease from the Land Commission on which to build houses for sale. In view of the fact that it was for housing one would not strike a severely commercial bargain, but, in return, one would be entitled to exercise control over the price at which the house would be sold so that the benefit of the transaction would pass on, as we all want it to, to the young couple who will buy the house.
Then there was the final bogey, that this means the end of owner-occupation as we know it. What is to happen to owner-occupation at the moment? The prices of houses have jumped up 30 per cent. during the last four years, faster than average earnings. As a constituent wrote to me recently,
I am trying to save, but prices rise faster than I can save.
I think that both the right hon. Gentleman, the Minister and his hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary should be


capable of grasping the difference between a lease from our proposed Land Commission and leasehold ownership, as it is understood today, by the private landlord. The essence of a private leasehold is that there comes the time when the house passes into the ownership of the ground landlord. Under our proposals no such thing would happen. I made this quite clear speaking in the House on 20th July, 1961, when I pointed out that where
a house is built on land leased from the Land Commission, that house should remain the property of the owner and his heirs so long as…there is a house there…"—[Official Report, 20th July, 1961; Vol. 644, c. 1488.]
Only when it is proposed to demolish the house to build something else in its place does the final right of ownership by the land commission operate. At no stage does the house itself revert to the ground landlord.

Sir Colin Thornton-Kemsley: Sir Colin Thornton-Kemsley (North Angus and Mearns) rose—

Mr. Stewart: Hon. Members will have an opportunity to argue this in debate. I must draw to a close what I have to say. I am sorry I cannot give way.

Mr. Philip N. Hocking: Only a question.

Mr. Stewart: I want to save time, because other hon. Members want to make speeches, and I shall not be much longer.
It is open to hon. Members to pick detail holes in this. I invite them, therefore, to say, do they propose that the present land racket should go on completely unabated? That is the question to which they will have to apply themselves.

Mr. Hocking: I am much obliged to the hon. Gentleman for giving way. He has set out in the last few minutes detailed arguments for setting up the Land Commission and he prefaced his remarks by saying that this was a body which the party opposite would set up merely to extract the development value, the increased value at the beginning of the development of the site. The hon. Gentleman will understand that it would be better to bring in a selective tax on the capital value or the increased capital value of the

land. It would do away with all this business of setting up the Land Commission.

Mr. Stewart: I think that the hon. Gentleman will have to read our proposals in more detail. He will then see, first, that the extraction of the development value is not the only object we have in view. Secondly, there are difficulties about a selective tax. Thirdly, if it is the policy of the party opposite to impose a selective tax as a way of dealing with the problem, we should be glad to hear hon. Members opposite develop the mechanism for that policy.
However, I believe that the situation now is this: first, that to solve the housing problem the nation has to accept a range of new ideas. It has to accept the idea that housing is and ought to be for nearly everybody in part a social service and not a purely private transaction; secondly, that that involves greater financial help to local housing authorities, and help in different ways; thirdly, that we shall not solve the housing problem without much more deliberate Government action to determine where industry and population shall be in the coming decades; and, fourthly, that despite the admittedly difficult mechanisms of any policy we shall not get an answer unless we can somehow solve the problem of the price and use of building land.
The weakness of the Government is that they are constantly being pushed, by the necessity of the facts, nearer and nearer to these ideas; but to operate a policy which requires new ideas will, I believe, require a Government who do not accept these ideas reluctantly and under the pressure of events, but who believe in them genuinely, and act upon them from the start.

5.5 p.m.

Sir Herbert Butcher: The hon. Gentleman the Member for Fulham (Mr. M. Stewart), in his last few remarks, dealt with proposals which have come from the party opposite. There is one point I would ask him to clear up at once, and I will give way immediately so that he may doso—if I may have his attention. The hon. Gentleman said that in the case of a house for private ownership the land would be in the occupation of the person


owning the house unless and until the house built on that land was demolished. Now, is not that absolutely the easiest way to perpetuate slums? Because not only does it mean the loss of the building but the lease of the land at one and the same moment, and surely the occupier will do everything he possibly can to make sure that the existing building never passes from him.
The arguments of the hon. Gentleman opposite, sincerely and ably put forward, quite clearly contain two points which I beg him to shed from his mind. The first is that rent control in itself is the way, and the second is that municipal building is more worthy to be assisted than other forms of housing development, I suppose that at this moment I should disclose, since we are dealing with housing, that I have some interest. I should disclose that I am a director of a building society and a director of a company which builds several hundred houses every year.
I would only say that the excellent Government White Paper is not, as the hon. Gentleman says it is, the last word of the Government on their policy for the last 12 years, but is a step by the Government an their steady movement forward to deal with housing. The Government have directed great attention to the question of housing under the leadership and inspiration of the Prime Minister himself, and when it comes to the record I accept the challenge, and I shall be prepared to fight any election on the Government's record.
The only comment I would make on it is that planning in all things is exceedingly difficult, so that Government planners can be caught out when forecasts gowrong—in terms of expected population, for instance. Indeed, so difficult is it to say what is to happen that while this White Paper, which came out only in May, says that funds are more plentiful for building societies, the fact remains that at the moment they are not as plentiful as they were at that time.
I cannot help feeling that one of the tragedies of this country is that normal housing for rent has been destroyed, but I think that we have to accept that it has happened, and that it largely happened in 1908, the time of the Land Act introduced by Mr.—as he then was—Lloyd George, and the imposition of

rent control in 1914, and its continuous application, have done more to prevent houses being available to rent—and furthermore the reintroduction and continuation of control by hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite. All these events have militated against the supply of proper housing accommodation.
Let us look at the present position, for if hon. Gentlemen opposite have any sense of equity they will wish to deal fairly with all classes of the community. What is the position? The stock of houses is about 16 million. About one-third are owned by municipalities, and in so far as the tenants do not pay a full and proper market rent to that extent they are subsidised either by the Exchequer or by rates. According to the figures given this afternoon by the Parliamentary Secretary, rather more than 40 per cent. of the houses are owner-occupied, so if we take municipal tenants who have no protection under the Rent Act, and owner-occupiers who have no protection under the Rent Act because they are not rent paying anyhow, we have more than 70 per cent. of the population to whom rent control is of no value whatsoever.
Thus the policy of the hon. Member for Fulham is to reimpose rent control and to continue rent control so that it may help a section of the community which is steadily declining in numbers. I am certain that this would be a retrograde step.

Mr. William Hannan: Is not the hon. Gentleman aware that the Minister of Health, when he was Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Housing and Local Government in 1956, claimed that the introduction of the Rent Act would make more houses available for renting, whereas the opposite has happened? What has the hon. Gentleman to say about that?

Sir H. Butcher: I believe that we are steadily moving towards that position. The number of what an earlier Socialist Government used to call"accommodation units", because they were much more accommodation-unit-minded than they were house-minded, is increasing. It is regrettable that at the moment they are coming along at the more expensive


side of the market, but, nevertheless, the building of flats for renting has started again.

Mr. Eric Lubbock: Would the hon. Gentleman complete his argument by telling us the number of privately rented properties still subject to control and the number being decontrolled every year?

Sir H. Butcher: Let us accept, if it is any advantage to the hon. Gentleman, that there are fewer houses under control this month than last, and that the number of houses under control is steadily running down. That emphasises the point I tried to make earlier, namely, that as worn out and slum houses subject to control are pulled down, and the people are rehoused elsewhere, or as, under the provisions of the Rent Act, other houses pass out of control, the number of houses in control is steadily diminishing. I accept that the Minister is most eager to see more houses available for renting, but I see the difficulties in this scheme.
Perhaps I might deal with the question of the Housing Corporation in which my right hon. Friend is interested. It is suggested that the new corporation shall be established on a basis of borrowing for 40 years, and that about £100 million should be provided by the Government and perhaps £200 million should come from the building societies. While I am sure that the building societies will do all that they can to aid and assist, it would not be equitable or right for them to lend at different rates to a housing association than to the ordinary owner-occupier.
We would have the position that the prudent lender of two-thirds of the money would receive, in return, the market rate, which at the moment is 6 per cent., while the other £100 million would come on Government terms at a somewhat lower rate of interest, probably 5 guineas or £5 10s. per £100, which is reversing the normal procedure, and I cannot help feeling that it is right that this housing association should rely for its finance on Government loan rather than on any other source of finance.
There are grave difficulties in this proposal. I mentioned a little while ago that building societies are not as well off

for funds as they once were, and as the price of individual houses increases the number of lenders that are required to finance one loan increases. The Government's policy is not quite clear to me. Four years ago the Government rightly made available to the building societies £100 million so that they could make advances on the older properties. That was an inestimable advantage, and nearly all the money was taken up. A large number of small, oldish houses, were acquired, in many cases by the sitting tenant, and I saw hundreds of these cases pass across my desk at fair and reasonable prices.
As soon as the man concerned became an owner, he made an enormous effort, frequently with the help of an improvement grant, towards repairing and modernising his house, and I say to my right hon. Friend that if it was right to make £100 million available in this extent only four years ago, it is slightly difficult to understand why it is possible for the building society movement at this time to be able to place at the disposal of this new housing corporation £200 million. I cannot help feeling that the building societies should concentrate on their main job, which in my view is the provision of homes for owner-occupation.
The hon. Member for Fulham quite rightly emphasised that the needs of different people changed during their lives. Some people would go so far as to say that they want one house when they marry, a larger house while their family is growing up, and then back to a small house as they get older.

Mr. A. Lewis: Some people would like one house in their lifetime.

Sir H. Butcher: The number of people buying houses is steadily increasing, and if the hon. Member for West Ham, North (Mr. A. Lewis), who has been in the House for a long time, feels in any difficulty, and I can assist him in a personal capacity, I shall be very happy to gossip with him later.

Mr. Lewis: The hon. Gentleman has misunderstood my point. Like most hon. Members, I am fortunate enough to have my own house, but there are thousands of my constituents who will never have a house of their own, just as their parents, and their parents' parents, never had their own houses.

Sir H. Butcher: I am indebted to the current issue of the Building Societies Gazettefor the figures which I am about to quote. There is great difficulty in making a loan for as long as 40 years. Perhaps I might contrast a Joan for 40 years with one for 20 years, because it is the former period which is proposed for the housing association. I am assuming that the loan is taken out at 5 per cent. An instalment which repays a loan in 20 years at 5 per cent. repays the same loan in 20 to 21 years at 5¼ per cent.; in 21 to 22 years at 5½ per cent.; in 22 to 23 years at 5¾ per cent.; and 23 to 24 years at 6 per cent. In other words,
an increase in the rate of interest of ½ per cent. adds under two years to the life of the loan, and an increase of 1 per cent. adds about 3½ years.
Next, let us consider a loan for 40 years, and in this connection I would like to inquire whether the Parliamentary Secretary is sure that the money lent to this housing association will be able to circulate. The instalment which repays a loan in 40 years at 5 per cent. repays the same loan in 45 to 46 years at 5¼ per cent.; in 53 to 54 years at 5½ per cent. and in 77 to 78 years at 5¾ per cent.; while at 6 per cent. the mortgage debt is increasing instead of being reduced. Because of these things, the money should be found by means of Government loan rather than in any other way.
I hope that this evening my right hon. Friend will feel able to announce that he has decided again to make money available for the purchase of old but sound houses, which can be brought into the housing stock, under the House Purchase and Housing Act, 1959.
It would be discourteous to the hon. Member for Fulham if I did not say a word about the high price of land. I regard it as one of the greatest evils of the day that the price of land is increasing as it is. It inflicts great hardship and the increment therein is apt to distract the builder from his proper job of building and into hoping that he will be able to secure a somewhat higher density consent and so make an increased profit.
But this must be regarded in two ways. If we are not to allow people to build in certain areas in and around the large cities of London, Manchester, Birmingham and elsewhere, so that we preserve land for schools and green belts and

parks and other amenities, with the scarce amount of land available in the market, prices must increase.
The hon. Member for Fulham made great play with an example of a house in Wandsworth Bridge Road whose value, he said, had increased from £1,800 to £6,500. It is very difficult to talk about prices of houses without having seen them. The price of £6,500 for a house situated in Wandsworth Bridge Road, which I know quite well, does not seem to be too bad at 5 per cent. per annum and may be the proper price. I could not say without knowing what the accommodation was. It is a matter of scarcity and in this respect the market largely controls the price which is paid.
If we are to examine the price of land, we must ask the Government to concentrate on the development of parts of the country which are now regarded as less favoured. While land is terribly expensive in London and around other great cities like Manchester, Birmingham and Glasgow, there are cities and other areas where it is freely available at reasonable prices. Why do people not build their houses there? [An Hon. Member: There is no industry there."] Somebody says that there is no industry there. On the whole, the industrial equipment is already there. The factories are there and so are the workers and the social services, like schools and main services. One of the real reasons why it is difficult to persuade industry to go to some of these towns is that they have a worn-out and tired appearance.
Whether it is an agreeable fact or not, it is a fact that in any industry about 5 per cent. of key people are responsible for the organisation and progress of the business. Without them the business would not go ahead, no matter what it is. On the whole, these people are the young executives who are in such great demand, as anybody who takes the trouble to look at the advertisement columns of the Sunday newspapers will see. They are the young technicians and the men moving forward to the use of computers, and others of the new implements of management in the new age.
If we could attract these young people to the North-East and Scotland, we would have done a great deal. Many


firms are eager to move into such districts because they recognise the advantages of a fine labour force, easier communications, less traffic congestion and so on. The difficulty is that these young executives, and their wives, are not convinced that the areas concerned will provide the kind of life and the kind of social environment which they wish to have.
It is a great pity that so much of the subsidies of all kinds is spent in London and the South. I may be a heretic, but I believe that if we were to cut the subsidy from Covent Garden and give it to an opera house towards the North, that would be an earnest of our eagerness to ensure that the backward cities got a new look. By concentrating on the amenities of the cities of the North, we should give them a new birth. The attraction of the new suburbs is their brightness and their layout, with their new concept of a social centre and a civic centre for shopping. Instead of moaning and groaning about the high cost of land in the South and the belief that these problems can be cured by some form of rent control, there should be a solid movement by all of us, inspired by the Government, to make the cities of the North more and more attractive.
There are one or two other ways in which the cost of land could be cut down, even now. I am always shocked by the cost of buying and selling land. Any hon. Member can buy a motor car for £1,000 or £2,000 now and have it in his possession, having borrowed the maximum, by this time tomorrow afternoon, and he can do so with the utmost ease. But if he were to buy £200 worth of land on which he wanted to build a garage or a house or anything else, he would have weeks and weeks of delay. I fail to see why, in 1963, it is not possible to have a new and improved system of land conveyancing. All these delays add to the cost by means of interest payments at a time when the land, obviously, cannot be used by the vendor and, equally, cannot be planned or used by the purchaser.
While on the subject of delay, may I say that I am sure that my right hon. Friend would help the position if he had a look through his own Ministry and did some speeding up of the deter-

mination of planning decisions. Delays of as much as three or four months in reaching planning decisions are now accepted and I fail to see why, with the resources of the Government and the many professional people available, these matters cannot be cleared up with a great deal more speed.
My right hon. Friend is making an important contribution to housing by his progressive approach to it. The White Paper, which I have criticised slightly, represents a great forward move in every way. The hon. Member for Fulham spoke of housing as a social service, but I believe that it is an entirely personal matter for the man, his wife and his family. Some people are content to rub along in very poor housing conditions, provided that they are able to spend a large amount of time in the hobbies and activities of their choice. Others are prepared to economise on everything else, provided that their home is comfortable and situate where they want, a place to which they return day after day. It is impossible to generalise. Housing is a personal need as well as a social service.
It would be completely wrong and it would be complete nonsense to accept the position, advocated by hon. Members opposite, in which almost everybody was subsidising almost everybody else in one way or another. As one who was once in the laundry trade, this is the best example I know of taking in one another's washing.
The right way to deal with these matters is to allow housing to be dealt with on an economic basis. Instead of subsidising the houses and the land, we should allow the natural forces of supply and demand to find their level—[Interruption.] I thought that hon. Gentlemen opposite would not like that—but, instead of subsidising the land or the houses, we should make sure, by means of assistance and subsidies to our less fortunate citizens, that we place at their disposal sufficient income to enable them to have their place and their opportunity of having proper accommodation in our midst.

5.30 p.m.

Mr. A. E. P. Duffy: In addressing the House for the first time I know that I can rely on the indulgence of hon. Members. They are re-


nowned for the kindness and tolerance that they show to new Members. My task is made easier, moreover, because I am succeeding as Member for the Colne Valley the late William Glenvil Hall, who was a distinguished and much loved Member of this House.
Not the least of the many gifts which Britain has conferred on the modern world is the device of Parliamentary government, so merely to have the opportunity of speaking in this Mother of Parliaments is a great privilege. I feel that the least I can do is to observe all the conventions which fit the occasion. Above all, I shall try to be non-contentious, although this will be far from easy, not merely because I hold decided views on the subject under discussion, but because the tradition of the constituency I represent is far from pacific. Its tall smoking chimneys are monuments to the industrial development of the woollen, worsted and textile industries which succeeded the hand-loom weaving era and the engineering and coal mining which followed. It was the scene of the protests of those much-maligned men, the Luddites, as well as of the struggles of the Chartists.
The men of the Colne Valley, however, have not been give only to protest. They have displayed an extraordinary capacity for social inventiveness. I draw the attention of the hon. Member for Holland with Boston (Sir H. Butcher) to the fact that the building society movement, the friendly society movement and the co-operative society, as well as the trade union and working men's club movements and even the Labour Party—all of which are now part of the very texture of our lives—were either created or profoundly shaped in this part of the country. Indeed, the history of the Labour movement has flowed down through the Colne Valley. It has had a romantic as well as a turbulent past. It has for long been the cockpit of British Socialism. Even the waters of the River Colne have run a bright red, although I must confess that that has been due less to local radicalism than to the dyes used in the mills which line its banks.
But in a never-to-be-forgotten by-election in July, 1907, just 56 years ago, the Colne Valley elected Victor Grayson,

the first man to be returned to this House on a straight Socialist ticket. There was something in that remarkable man, so far as I can judge, which mirrored the aspirations of the submerged half of the nation. More than anything else, I think, he appealed to the feeling in the hearts of his listeners for a new world of fellowship, and they responded. The values which he upheld are still practised in my constituency today. The men and women there still express them through their trade unions, through their brass bands and their clubs as well as through their churches. The result is that they have a strong sense of community consciousness and neighbourliness. Even the urban districts which make up most of the constituency have retained their village and rural characteristics.
Living is decent and healthy in the Colne Valley and stands for much of what is desirable in our society. I am concerned that it should not be threatened or undermined by lack of decent social amenities. If the worst evils of early industrialism are no longer evident in its crippled people—thank heaven—they are still evident in its crippled industrial areas. Up there, in the Colne Valley, the social problems of our society are to be found in their most acute form—in obsolescence, urban renewal and the shortage of small houses, especially for the old, an unsatisfactory households-dwellings ratio, education, traffic problems, loss of population and the difficulty of attracting specialists. On this, a passage in the speech of the hon. Member for Holland with Boston found a ready echo from me, for there is great difficulty in attracting specialists to the area.
There is a tendency, again, as the hon. Member implied, to believe that the housing problem is most acute in areas within easy reach of Birmingham, or London, and places where there has been rapid industrial development. But in terms of absolute need, obsolete housing, cramped houses, poor amenities, difficult approaches and even scarcity of building land due to physical features, these old industrial areas, especially in the Pennine valleys, are the worst off. In the Colne Valley old couples as well as young couples have to contend with the obstacles of dear money and dear land; and there is a disproportionate number


of old couples. The upsurge in land costs has not been so spectacular as in more fashionable areas. But the percentage increase in the land cost factor in the price of local dwellings has been disgraceful, nevertheless.
There is evidence that the problem of soaring land values is widespread, and there is certainly widespread resentment at the market in land. Assuming that land is a fit commodity for the free play of market forces—and that is a questionable assumption—trade unionists, or I shall be surprised, will want to know why this freedom is granted to capital, while moves are afoot to control their rewards through the N.I.C. Not that I should want to simplify that problem.
Land taxation and the rating of site values both fall short of what is needed. But despite the snags in the device of a Land Commission, society will become more, rather than less, sensitive to the problem of what is called betterment. For the moral objection to the private absorption of land values created by the whole community is not confined to Socialists, by any means. Land costs are not the only obstacle of course. There is the problem of modernisation of the existing stock. Too many houses in the Colne Valley were built during the nineteenth century. But how is the tenant of a decontrolled property to compel his landlord to improve the house and then protect himself against retaliation by the landlord? And what of the twilight houses—to use the Minister's own words—those houses which are not slums and yet are not eligible for improvement grants?
I am very much impressed by the vigour and determination which the Minister is bringing to his task these days. I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Fulham (Mr. M. Stewart) will not think that I am straining the conventions of maiden-speaking too far when I say that. But in view of the deterioration of old property, as well as the increased demand due to rising public expectation of good housing, I wonder if the Minister will look again at his target figure for new construction. Will he agree that it is too modest by Continental standards?
Then there is the persistently high rate of interest. That is another great

obstacle to new construction. How long is the Minister going to allow his colleagues at the Treasury to penalise this important form of social investment? Will he not explore the possibilities of a manipulated low rate of interest for public housing?
Once again, I emphasise that the problems of housing and urban land values are not necessarily confined to or even most acute at the growing points of the social economy. Colne Valley's neighbours, such as Oldham, Huddersfield, Dewsbury, Wakefield and Barnsley, all have tremendous problems. Their importance for the Colne Valley lies in the manner in which they shape its employment prospects, and generally determine the tempo of its economic activities.
Does not this point to the need for effective regional planning? Is there not a case for a more determined approach than is envisaged in the White Paper? Do we not need to recognise that the size of the housing problem is too large for many existing authorities to handle? I would, therefore, ask the Minister to accord a measure of priority to the Yorkshire region, part of the cradle of our industrial society. Will not the Minister recognise that the West Riding is unfairly burdened with a legacy of early industrialism, Slums and obsolescence, the decay of the inner areas of the towns and cities, scarcity of suitable building land and the drift of population to the South, are just some of these problems. Will he not therefore recognise this situation?
I make these appeals to the right hon. Gentleman because I know that he understands these problems as well as I do. Will he not recognise that when the current rate of construction in Yorkshire is related to the condition, size and location of houses, as well as to the volume of need, much more needs to be done? For the economic growth prospects in Yorkshire are poor, and if the present trend continues the region will undoubtedly be designated a development district by the end of this decade. How far is this due to inadequate social amenities?
Finally, if much of the West Riding has been judged to be a special review area for local government reform, will the Minister not also judge it to be a special review area for urban renewal for some of the same reasons?

5.41 p.m.

Mr. John M. Temple: I am sure that I speak on behalf of the whole House when I say that it is a privilege for me to congratulate the hon. Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Duffy) on a notable maiden speech. I should particularly like to echo the tribute which he paid to his predecessor, the late Mr. Glenvil Hall, who was very much honoured on both sides of the House. We congratulate the hon. Member on coming to the House in the place of such a distinguished Member of Parliament.
As a son of Lancashire, it is a privilege for me to congratulate an hon. Member for Colne Valley. My grandfather was brought up in Colne Valley—but I am sorry to have to inform the hon. Member that he was never a member of the Labour Party! I do congratulate the hon. Member on his great knowledge of that part of the country, the home of the Industrial Revolution. The hon. Member has truly portrayed many of the characteristics which went with the era of the Industrial Revolution, and mentioned many of the scars of which will have to be wiped out in the comparatively near future.
The hon. Member was quite right to draw attention to the potential of his constituency. I am sure that the potential is as great as it was when Lancashire was the cradle of our Industrial Revolution a century ago. We were all delighted by the way in which the hon. Member spoke, and I personally congratulate him on his splendid fluency. We all look forward to hearing from him on many other occasions.
We have heard today two extremely thoughtful speeches from the opening speakers and, as I wish to make a constructive speech, I will, in the course of my observations, deal with many of the points which were made both by my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary and by the hon. Member for Fulham (Mr. M. Stewart). I agree with the Parliamentary Secretary who, in his opening remarks, stated that housing was the bedrock of our society and of our family life. I am quite sure that he was right. I read with great interest the leading article in The Times of 4th July,"After Affluence". It was a pungent and penetrating article, and it must have made us all think. After affluence. I believe,

something else should come. I am convinced that our society today has been paying too much regard to what I would call the inessentials of life. I notice particularly that in that leading article The Times said that education should be a crusade. May I remind the editor of The Times that over many years the Conservative Party have made slum clearance one of their great crusades, and I think that the Conservative Party can take a considerable amount of credit for the success of that slum clearance crusade.
As I said, I believe that in our society today too much attention has been paid to the inessentials of life. Since the last war most of our people achieved a position in which they have two weeks' holiday with pay. They have achieved the status symbol of a television set. Almost one family in three has a motor car. Many families are looking forward to the time when they can have a family holiday abroad. I do not say that this is universal, but a great deal has been achieved and, significantly at the same time, there has been a reluctance to pay for what I call the fundamentals of life; food and shelter.
There has, I believe, been a reluctance to pay the full price for food. We have lived in a society for the last few years in which food has been available at a specially favourable price because of the subsidies paid out by the Government. Until the Rent Act, accommodation was available at a rental below the true market rental. There are many people living in homes which are subsidised by taxpayers and ratepayers and who could well afford to pay the full market cost of their accommodation. I hope that rent rebate and differential rent schemes will become much more universal. I believe that only those persons who are in need should be able to draw, through housing subsidies, upon the resources of their fellow ratepayers and their fellow taxpayers.
I echo the statement of my hon. Friend the Member for Holland with Boston (Sir H. Butcher), who congratulated my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister on being the prime mover in the Conservative Party's housing drive. That is true. I pay a further tribute to my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister on being always in the van of great social reformers.
Since 1951 the Conservative Party have a creditable record in housing, but my right hon. Friend the present Minister of Housing is right to say that today we face a changing situation. The hon. Member for Fulham said that Members on both sides of the House had for some time been saying many of the things in the White Paper. I think that that is quite true. If one had attended church regularly, Sunday after Sunday, and listened to the banns of marriage being read out, and if one had asked the local parson what was the average age of death and of marriage among the congregation, he would have said that the average age of marriage was much younger than in the past and that people were living longer. It did not come as a surprise to me, and it did not require statisticians and computers to detect the fact, that we should need an increasing housing target. In fact, two or three years ago I suggested a housing target of 400,000 houses a year, although I recognise that over the last few years it has been difficult to allocate our resources between all the various sectors of demand. At this stage it is certainly welcome to the whole House that my right hon. Friend has lifted his sights at least to 350,000 houses a year.
I cannot comment on all the facets of the Government's White Paper, but it makes it clear, from the 1961 census figures, that there is roughly an equation today, taking the country as a whole, between the number of households and the number of houses. But I submit that that is a very misleading figure. Indeed, the White Paper recognises that there is a supra-demand for between half-a-million or a million houses today. The White Paper goes on to say that the shortages are mainly in Greater London, Birmingham, Clydeside, and, I would say, elsewhere too. There is no doubt that throughout a great deal of the country there is a demand for houses which is not at present being met by the building programme.
It is difficult to quantify this demand, and that has been one of our difficulties over the last few years. There has been a relative lack of reliable statistics. We have had the housing lists of the local authorities, but they have not got down to the true position in their areas. That is why my right hon. Friend the Minister

is calling for far better statistics. I ask him, when he gets these better statistics, to go further and to collate them on a regional basis.
Earlier today I read an extraordinarily interesting article in the Annual Productivity Review of the Financial Times which accompanied today's issue of this paper. This article was written by Mr. D. E. Woodbine Parish, past-president of the Building Trades Employers Federation.
The hon. Member for Fulham posed a question. He asked whether the target of 350,000 houses a year can be achieved. I shall seek to show the House that I believe that this target can be achieved. I believe that it can be achieved on two main premises—first, that the Government are now giving positive aid to the furthering of new building techniques, and, secondly, that the building industry is putting its house in order and breaking fresh ground.
The article is entitled,"Building puts its house in order". From this article we know that not only the National Federation of Building Trades Employers but also the professional bodies, the trade unions and the employees themselves are all prepared to work for a great increase in output by the building industry. They have had splendid encouragement from the Minister of Public Building and Works. I congratulate my right hon. Friend on his leadership and enterprise. He has set up a Directorate of Research and Development. A great deal of good can stem from this Directorate. The National Federation of Building Trades Employers has set up an Advisory Council for the Construction Industries. The Royal Institute of British Architects and the Institute of Builders have joined together and undertaken critical surveys of their own spheres of interest.
Again, the trade unions and the Department of Scientific and Industrial Research are looking into employees' skills and are streamlining the craft unions. I pay particular tribute to the enlightened attitude of the trade unions in the building sphere. They are showing what co-operation can do and how demarcation difficulties can be broken down. In that spirit we can achieve increased production. I am confident that, with this new spirit developing,


with this new partnership between the Government and all the various arms of the building industry, a target of 350,000 houses per annum—nay, more than 350,000—can be achieved.
One of the central points of this debate has been the difficulty over the provision of land. This will be a continuing difficulty. Very significantly, there have been two references in successive White Papers, more or less in exactly the same terms, to the way in which building land should be provided. Paragraph 62 of Cmnd. 1952,"London—Employment: Housing: Land" says this:
Local planning authorities will have to consider how all these demands are to be met.
Paragraph 28 of Command 2050,"Housing", says this:
This is in the first place the responsibility of local planning authorities…
The Government are placing this responsibility squarely—I do not say quite fairly, but certainly squarely—on the shoulders of local planning authorities. The provision of more building land is definitely a very hot potato. I am not absolutely certain that local planning authorities, organised as they are today, are quite in a position to deal with the problem. Significantly, county councils are not housing authorities; yet it is county councils which have the planning powers over the bulk of the land which will need to be developed.
I want to pay tribute to all the aldermen and councillors who sit on local planning authorities. Theirs is not an easy task. I also pay tribute to the officials in the planning world. They have to adjudicate between the conflicting claims of the various interests in their area. I believe that we may have to look a little beyond local planning authorities to carry out this difficult rô1e of the provision of building land for the larger commitments.
My right hon. Friend the Minister of Housing and Local Government has set up various regional studies within his Department. In their way they are a good thing, but I do not think they go far enough. I do not think that there is the continuity in a regional study which could be achieved by regional planning. In many instances at present these regional studies are having the effect of freezing the present situation. Local

planning authorities say,"We must wait until we hear the findings of the regional study". Therefore, momentarily the studies are having the effect of sterilising the position.
I congratulate my right hon. Friend on the fact that his Department seems to be coming round to the way of thinking of many of us who have been thinking about these problems for some time. We have had mention of the"City region". This is the first time that the"City region" has been acknowledged in a White Paper, although my hon. Friend the Joint Parliamentary Secretary was a joint author with myself of Change and Challenge, a C.P.C. document to which the hon. Member for Fulham referred. This document advocated a type of regional planning which was to be set to work between local planning authorities and national planning. We have I believe a powerful ally in the form of my hon. Friend the Joint Parliamentary Secretary, who I hope will press forward with any concepts of regional planning which hon. Members put before him.
In the last few years the Town and Country Planning Association has carried out a series of regional studies of the four main city regions of England—London and the South-East, the Midlands, the North-East and the North-West. I had the honour to take the chair at the north-west regional conference of the Town and Country Planning Association in Southport. I was greatly struck by the tremendous amount of co-operation which there was between the various local planning authorities of Lancashire and Cheshire and related parts of the North-West. I formed the view that, once all the various authorities could be got together, either in one conference or in one standing conference, there was a much better chance of getting an understanding, first that a regional problem existed, and secondly that the regional problem was there to be solved in the interests of all the citizens of that particular region.
I do not say that these ad hoc conferences are the whole answer. Of course they are not. Nor do I think that my right hon. Friend's regional studies are the whole answer. However, there has been a recent development which I believe is a partial answer. Last night I was talking to my right hon. Friend the


Member for Guildford (Sir R. Nugent), who is the chairman of the London Regional Planning Conference. This conference has no statutory status whatsoever. It was started as recently as December of last year. It has two technical panels—one consisting of planning officers, and the other an administrative panel consisting of clerks of planning authorities. I understand that the conference has developed an extremely satisfactory atmosphere of co-operation. I believe that something similar to this conference should be considered for our other major city regions.
Perhaps it is too much to expect my right hon. Friend to accept too great a degree of regional planning at present. In a debate in the House six months ago I spoke about all the details of regional planning, I will not go over that ground again. It would be wise to make a start with regional co-operation between local planning authorities, and I hope that my right hon. Friend will find it is in his heart to encourage a similar approach to that which is being made through the London Regional Planning Conference for other city regions.
There are difficulties facing local planning authorities at present. Their areas have never been delimited to take cognisance of geographical features, they are purely fortuitous, having been handed down from the past. Even with the reorganisation of local government which is going on at present, the new units of local government will not be large enough to take cognisance of problems over a wide area. I remind my right hon. Friend that only a few days ago he was arguing with me and putting forward the case in Standing Committee F for rather larger authorities to look after our water resources. If we could have regional planning authorities, which would take a wider view and would incorporate within them members interested in many of the facets of our industrial and administrative life—in the same way as my right hon. Friend is proposing for river authorities, which will have a much broader base than the existing river boards—then they could take cognisance of all the developing features that go with land use and the planning of highways, transport and other public services. If we were able equally to get the members of local

planning authorities into a standing regional conference they would have a better appreciation of the regional difficulties. One can imagine how such people, when drawn together, would have a joint determination to find living space for their fellow citizens. This surely is the heart of the problem we face today.
Turning to a related topic, I am pleased with the progress that is being made with further new towns, but I remind my right hon. Friend that in other countries much larger new towns are being considered. I appreciate that my right hon. Friend has difficulty in finding a suitable spot to designate for a new town. I think that he would be wise to contemplate trying to designate one with a population of, say, 150,000 people. A new town with a population of this size could encompass within its boundaries a much wider range of larger industries. At present new towns frequently depend on one dominant industry or on a number of relatively small and secondary industries.
If a new town were designated with a population of 150,000 it would be an ideal administrative unit of local government and would be a bold experiment which, I am sure, my right hon. Friend would like to try. I encourage him to try this experiment because I cannot visualise that he would find much more difficulty in designating a town of this size compared with designating a town similar to the present new ones, which have populations of about 70,000.
As a small ancillary in our housing drive it is worth considering the potential of mobile homes, particularly for retired people. I have deliberately called these beautiful dwellings"mobile homes" because, like many hon. Members, I have seen them at recent caravan exhibitions. I have visited caravan sites in many parts of the country and have spoken to retired people living happily in these types of home. As an ancillary to our housing problem these mobile homes could be valuable because for every mobile home occupied another house would be freed to a family which needs to live closer to the heart of a city.
May I sum up? I have always regarded housing as the bedrock of our society. I realise that people who can afford should pay a realistic rent. Rising living


standards of the population mean that more land must be provided for house building. Although regional planning will not itself produce more land, it may well suggest the right places where land may be found. The new techniques which are being encouraged by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Public Building and Works will be valuable and I welcome the contribution which the building industry is making towards these new techniques. I regard the new target of 350,000 houses a year as a minimum. I hope that this target will be swiftly achieved; then we must press on to higher targets.

6.5 p.m.

Mr. B. T. Parkin: I promise the hon. Member for the City of Chester (Mr. Temple) that I will refer to the rôle of the Prime Minister in the development of Britain's housing policy in the last few years. It is a sad thing on an occasion such as this—a short debate, which will be interrupted—that one cannot fully enjoy the courtesy and pleasure of commenting fully on the sort of speech the hon. Member for the City of Chester has just made. I should dearly love to throw away my notes and follow the enthusiasm of the hon. Member along several of the vistas he opened up—new building techniques, with which I am in agreement, his attitude to housing for old people, which needs further discussion, and many of the other points he raised—but I must not be tempted along those avenues because I have a sadder kind of speech to make.
It is nearly a year since, at 4 o'clock one morning, I made a long and, I thought, substantial speech—there was ample time at that hour of the day in which to elaborate one's arguments—about our homeless people. That speech was then dismissed by the Minister of Housing and Local Government virtually in a sentence, for the right hon. Gentleman said that my speech had consisted of dreams which he shared and mud slinging, which he did not share.
We can rightly get excited about new techniques and policies. I did not and do not ask for dreams. I set out in detail the sort of improvements which I thought might be made. I asked the Minister to consider the byelaws in relation to modern techniques and said

that, once he had adjusted them or had got a new set, he should see that they were enforced. I asked for all sorts of practical things to be done. I do not regard them as dreams, although the Minister does.
Even during the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Fulham (Mr. M. Stewart) I noticed a curious distinction on the benches opposite; a distinction between the laughter from the back benches at precisely the same moments when the Minister was nodding his agreement with the remarks of my hon. Friend. The Minister has been well in advance of his party and I share his enthusiasm. We know that there is an immense amount of experience, a good number of practical proposals and new suggestions available, particularly in the line in which I am interested; the conversion and renewal of old properties.
The trouble is that we get to the point when the little things, which added together could make so much, are frustrated because something else happens and because that something else is regarded by the Minister as being doctrinaire when we point it out from this side. The trouble is caused by the intervention of two characters in the community who do no practical work. We must arrive at a scheme whereby there is a reward for new inventions, enthusiasm, developers and architects. The trouble is that at present it goes to those two characters—the landowner and the money lender.
If the Minister will not listen to the protests of people who cannot in any way be called doctrinaire, to whom will he listen? I refer to the owners of the chain stores, who are beginning to squawk. They have seen how much they have fallen into the trap of the building policy of the Government in the last few years. They have seen how, tempted by the idea that if they take new properties and lease them over a period of years, so selling their old ones and realising the capital to be used in their businesses, they are having to pay 10 times the previous rent. The whole situation is now out of the hands of the developer and in the hands of the investment company.
Government policy has meant that all the ingenuity and artistic approach, the


good and forward-looking new developments, are meaning nothing. It has meant that all the improvements in distribution are coming to nil. With the self-service stores and the rest there is 4d. off no longer. It is 4d. on. One can have 4d. off on only a few catch-lines, while the coppers must come out of the pockets of the public to pay the high rents. This Government have done more damage to the small shopkeeper than any other single factor in the last hundred years. They have almost driven him into extinction because there is no longer room for the small craftsman.
The tally-man, Johnny-come-fortnight, can sell cheaper now than the small shop keeper. Madame Janette—and all the rest of the single-proprietor shops—where a woman of good taste could pick good clothes for her customers, with a nice turnover amongst the typists at lunch time, instead of having her little six-foot-wide shop has been"conned" into taking a new shop in the new parade, where she has to make £20 a week for the rent before she starts to show a profit. There is no room now for the repairing watchmaker, or the chap who takes the trouble to repair children's toys and give good advice about what to buy. There is no time for the service that should be available—it is eliminated from our society. We can do nothing about it, because the second stage has been reached, and we are in the hands of the moneylenders.
Turning to what has happened on the dwellings side of the picture, I shall be more critical. The right hon. Gentleman knows that I have shared his enthusiasms. We have had many discussions on practical proposals. He has given me help, and I hope that I have sometimes been able to help him. I acknowledge all that, and he knows that there is nothing personal in what I have to say. Nevertheless, I have to accuse him of failing to see what has been going on.
I have to refer to the specific and definite promises made to me and to some of my hon. Friends by the right hon. Gentleman, by the Minister of Housing at the time, who is now the Home Secretary, and by the Home Secretary at that time, that the most careful investigations would be made into the Rachman empire to try to get

at the root of what was then the curse of west London, with all the threat to social stability and democracy it implied.
I want to know how far those investigations went, and how far the truth was known, because the Minister is caught on this fork: either the investigations were made and he knew the results, or they were not made. Either the follow-up was there, or it was not there. If it was there, and if everything was in order and legal, why did not the Minister ask the House for legislation to deal with the evils? If everything was not legal—

Sir K. Joseph: The hon. Member will help me and the whole Committee if he relates his strictures, if they are to be strictures, to the law as altered by the multi-occupation Sections of the Housing Act, 1961.

Mr. Parkin: It would have helped if, for instance, the Paddington Borough Council had agreed at the time of passing that Act to get more staff to deal with the situation. It is all very well to pass an Act, but we then find that Tory councillors are not even interested enough to undertake even to consider getting more staff to implement an Act passed by their own Government. However, I must not allow the right hon. Gentleman to lead me into a discussion of the implementation of that Act, attractive though that would be, but he has a long way to go yet before seeing that Measure in full operation.
I want to go back to the beginning. I have just reminded the Minister of the main troubles then; the fact that no repairs could be insisted upon because houses were passing so quickly from one ownership to another; the fact that I, at least, could not find the source of finance that gave the large mortgages to those to whom houses were sold; that nothing was done to bring to book those playing the trick we now hear was done as a joke—taking the roof off a house, and leaving it to the Paddington Borough Council to put on tarpaulins.
Does the right hon. Gentleman know that when a group of the mayors and town clerks of west London boroughs came to this House to discuss what should be done about the racial tensions of the time, the Mayor of Paddington


of the time, who was rather inarticulate, left it to the Town Clerk, Mr. Bentley, to make the point that to take over houses as they were was municipalisation by the back door, and that there was no power for the authorities to take over the houses because it was not possible to make the case that they were required for our own housing programme.
I will leave that—but the right hon. Gentleman will remember the imprudent Mr. Carter who lent his name to that bogus estate agency in Westbourne Grove, under the cover of which many of these things took place.
The hon. Member for the City of Chester has spoken of the rô1e of the Prime Minister, so let us go back to 1955, when freehold property, formerly part of the Paddington Estate, was put on auction in Paddington"By order of the Church Commissioners of England." In 1955 there was much talk of a property-owning democracy and the present Prime Minister had just been Minister of Housing. I went to that auction in Porchester Hall, and listened to it for a few minutes. A few days later, in that same hall, I said,"This was a thieves' kitchen of financiers gambling with the homes of the people of Paddington." Great exception was taken to those remarks, but in view of what happened I can state them again.
The Church Commissioners are very often restricted by the fact that it is their duty to get the highest possible value out of the trust vested in them, and I do not complain about that. I have often said that one of their difficulties is that they have two loyalties. That applies to other trusts, too. They have no right to sell at less than the best price.
The lot I saw sold in the Porchester Hall was situated in Hereford Road, Paddington. Bearing in mind the enthusiasm for a property-owning democracy, one might have thought that a lot of people would on that occasion have had the chance to buy their homes. That was not the case. Those houses were lotted, four at a time. But, first of all, the whole road was put up for auction at once. That road went at £95,000–60 dwellings: just about £1,500 a house. I should have thought that the Church Commissioners were entitled to get a

little more than that, even at that time. I thought that there was a little fiddling going on.
What happened after that? Half of those houses were on monthly and weekly tenancies, and some on expiring leases, and at that time the return on them all was £10,979 15s. 1d. The investor did not do too badly. He was getting rather more than 11 per cent. on his purchase price, and need not have done anything more. Had those houses been bought individually, it would have meant £1,500 for a house with five floors—£300 a floor; £600, basic, for a two-floor dwelling. That would have helped a property-owning democracy. With all his recent enthusiasm, the Minister must remember that housing associations had been invented long before then. It would have been possible to negotiate, after preliminary publicity, and at the same time, get a little more money.
A year or two after that, one of the houses in Hereford Road, by then owned by Mr. Rachman, was let—and I take this just as an example of all that he was associated with—at a fantastic rent, all perfectly legal, to an experienced coloured man. He knew how to let the house as seven separate dwellings to seven separate girls at £3 10s. 0d. per dwelling per day, payable daily at noon. That is £10,000 a year from one house—enough to pay the interest on the price paid for the whole road.
The right hon. Gentleman will at least allow that, apart from the way in which the dwellings were taken from legitimate working-class people, that was a factor in pushing up the price. If he did not know, he could have asked a policeman. Methods of inquiry were open then. All these things were known and observed, but it was not thought right to bring in remedial measures for cases like that at the time of the Street Offences Act.
Let us go a little further with Mr. Rachman's activities. We could not find at the time how these large mortgages were obtained. The right hon. Gentleman will remember that I reported to him trying to buy a house. The price was going up £500 or £1,000 every day and 100 per cent. mortgages were being offered. We could never get anyone to agree on a valuation for any house that we wanted to buy. If we had bought


it we should have been still obliged to let it at an economic rent on this inflated price. I skip over the rest. I suggest to the right hon. Gentleman that I, because I could not get enough done, and he, because he could not get enough done, and, above all, those in a better position to get enough done, must share the responsibility

Sir K. Joseph: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way, and I am shirking nothing. I was hoping that he was going to tell us to what extent he thinks the 1961 Act, which was passed to deal with the Rachman type of problem, has been effective. I should be grateful if the hon. Member would tell us what he knows.

Mr. Parkin: I was coming to that. We shall come in the end to the same conclusion as in the case of Madame Janette. We shall find at the end of the day that everything has been tied up and is respectable and the moneylender has taken the place of the speculator and a new levy has inevitably to be paid through inflation. The right hon. Gentleman should hesitate before he interrupts me, because he knows perfectly well that that Act did nothing and could not do anything to stop this kind of inflated prices.

Sir K. Joseph: Sir K. Joseph indicated dissent.

Mr. Parkin: Perhaps when the right hon. Gentleman has heard me out he will think better of it. I have pointed out what the Prime Minister and the Church Commissioners might have done at an earlier stage, but things have got completely out of hand since then.
I do not want to recapitulate, though I am tempted for the sake of the record, the details of those evil days, but the Minister knows that we share the responsibility for the racial riots of Notting Hill when night after night there was nothing less than civil war in that area, and fighting between members of the St. Stephen's Tenants' Association which, curiously enough, was formed to fight the coloured man only to find that he was not their enemy—

The Temporary Chairman (Sir H. Legge-Bourke): I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Member, but law and order hardly comes within the responsibility of the Minister of Housing and Local Government.

Mr. Parkin: You live in a happier world than I do, Sir Harry. You have the sort of problems of law and order which do not involve taking the roof off people's houses, but I accept your Ruling.
Not only did we have outbreaks of colour prejudice and the Notting Hill riots, but who knows what effect reports of these all over the world have had in strengthening the hand of those in the United States who want to oppose the final emancipation of 20 million negroes there? After that we had outbreaks of anti-Semitism in North Paddington, something which we thought should have been buried with the ashes of Auschwitz and Buchenwald. The synagogue in Paddington was smeared and all this anti-Semitism had to be lived through again. These are the things where responsibilities are very much wider.
Those who first of all appealed to the local authorities, to Members of Parliament and to Ministers, gave up in the end. They decided—and this is important in relation to democracy—that nothing could be done by democratic methods. Bit by bit they relied more and more upon force and less upon argument in defending themselves. Most of them eventually joined C.N.D. and the Committee of 100 and they have been in and out of prison ever since.
If, Sir Harry, you had not been talking to someone else, you would have given me one more warning to sit down, because you would not have seen the connection between the Committee of 100 and the housing situation in Paddington. Neither would I if I had not seen in the local paper, under the enormous headline"Ban the Bomb Group must Quit; Committee of 100 Chief is among Tenants", a spokesman for the landlord, Mr. Stephen Anderton Halsall, alleging dreadful things, such as people going to the flats and pressing the wrong doorbell.
Mr. Halsall is a very respectable man who rides to hounds somewhere near Great Missenden. He was fortunate enough to get control of the Eagle Building Society some years ago. The society, I am sure, is perfectly legal. The Registrar of Friendly Societies took a long hard look at it some time ago and decided on the whole that it should not advertise to the general public for money. But that was not trouble at all. There


were other sources. Mr. Rachman used to put deposits in the society in exchange for an undertaking that no questions would be asked about a valuation or a survey, and they never were asked. This is where the £2,000 and £3,000 valuations went up to £6,000, plus 10 per cent., known as a"procurement fee" which one pays if unfortunately the society is short of funds but a special exception can be made in one's case and one brings the 10 per cent. along in used pound notes.
The ins and outs of the Eagle Building Society are fantastic. I will tell the Minister one story if only for a laugh to break the tension. A lavatory was mortgaged for £2,500 by mistake, because the scheme was to mortgage all the flats separately. The surveyor was drunk and he went out into the back yard and came to the conclusion—

The Temporary Chairman: I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Member again, but it would be very helpful to the Committee and to the Chair if he could relate his remarks to the responsibilities of the Minister of Housing and Local Government.

Mr. James MacColl: Further to that point. As I understand that my hon. Friend the Member for Paddington, North (Mr. Parkin) is dealing with the contribution made by building societies for the provision of houses to let, and in view of the fact that the Parliamentary Secretary spent a long time in talking about the machinery to provide houses to let by co-operation between the Government and building societies, is it not in order for my hon. Friend to suggest that in certain circumstances the machinery may not work?

The Temporary Chairman: I certainly agree that if the hon. Member for Paddington, North (Mr. Parkin) suggests what the Minister should do that probably would be perfectly in order. I am concerned that the hon. Member appears to be dealing with matters which I think are beyond the responsibilities of the Minister.

Mr. Parkin: I am sorry, Sir Harry, but I was asked by the Minister himself to tell him something about the sequelaeof the Rachman affair in relation to the 1961 Act, and I was following an hon.

Member who, a couple of speeches ago, was talking about building societies. I should have thought that this was highly relevant to the Government's policy. I should have thought that it was relevant to show how it has added to the inflation in property values. I should have thought that the Minister, if he has not found it out, would have been very glad to hear it. The right hon. Gentleman gave assurances that investigations were being made.
This is no time to discuss legislation and no time for name-dropping and scandal-mongering, but I am bound to bring out this case because here we have the choice—either the operations were perfectly legitimate and so will carry on, or legislation should be introduced to make them impossible. This building society is not short of funds. I am sorry that I have to amplify this matter. Mr. Rachman did not have to take the whole £6,000. It was enough if he took the money which he paid for the house. The rest is paid back as a deposit to the building society and is available for later use.
All sorts of interesting things were done. Mr. Rachman took £30,000 in cash on No. 1, Bryanston Mews which was mortgaged by Copeland Investments to the Eagle Building Society four months before Mr. Rachman disappeared. I say"disappeared" advisedly, because we now come to the point of examining the situation today. The right hon. Gentleman will perhaps know that Mr. Rachman's estate was sworn at £8,000 by an Inland Revenue affidavit. Does the right hon. Gentleman really think anybody would believe that, if investigations had ever been made? Should there not have been the most careful chase-up of every property that had been through his hands in the last four or five years? Good heavens, if I gave the house in which I live to my wife as a birthday present, and lived for four and three-quarter years, the sharks would be after her. I would not have got through the inter vivos. It is impossible, and because it is, everybody laughs and says,"They are a dopey lot in the Government. Why do they not go after the real crooks?"
That leads to the suggestion that Rachman is not dead. All Fleet Street is full of the idea that Rachman is not dead. The editor of the Daily Telegraph


obviously does not believe he is dead. Otherwise he would not have printed that"dead pan" article about Rachman's estate the other day. It would be easy to switch bodies since he was"dead on arrival" at Edgware General Hospital. With an overworked houseman in charge they can only feel the body to see whether it is warm or cold. It does not require many interested witnesses—a cremation and a Stateless man, and that is that. It would be a very good idea to have a substitution, and very useful—just 10 days before all hell broke loose.
Well, that is somebody else's story. It is not mine. There is no real evidence. But a lot of other people are alive. Mr. Nash is still alive—a very interesting character. A lot of property has gone through his hands. He is something to do with Copeland Investments. The New Court Hotel went through his hands. Rachman had it at one time. Billy Hill has got it now, and it is run by somebody called Peter Nolan, a very experienced person. Halsall has got the Ambassador Hotel at Paddington. I could quote endless names and addresses. But it is not really worth it. Carters have disappeared. Peter Davies is still very much alive, a cheeky young man who found property dealing much more rewarding than being a credit draper, who appeared on television and spoke about his great ambition to put coach lamps outside every one of these houses, which he called improvements. He has a very respectable-looking chain of companies. The Brush and Palette Club in Paddington is still in existence, as we have recently been reminded. I do not know who now owns the head lease of that. Mr. Rachman owned about 20 basement clubs which he leased out. The operators only paid him rent. That was one of the tricks. Rachman bought the property and sold it again, leasing the basement back to himself.
If one goes up the stairs instead of down, anyone who visits the Brush and Palette Club can get a long list of properties off the door. In the Kenya Coffee Bar opposite there is a modern Lloyds—history will recognise it—like the original Lloyds Coffee Bar, a sort of clearing house for people who have got into a bit of difficulty and perhaps are having some trouble with the public health man. One

sells a property for three months with the guarantee that it will be sold back. That is how the ownership is switched. Until one gets good will from the borough council one will not get very far under the 1961 Act or any other Act. One gets to the stage when the property is in the hands of the moneylender once more. Everything is sewn up and respectable, and the levy has to be paid by those who come in.
Nobody, not a Labour Government not a housing association, not an owner-occupier who is honest can cope with that kind of inflation of values. The right hon. Gentleman knows and I know that it can be done, that there is really nothing in the way of a decent landlord carrying out the repairs and improvement. All the devices are there. There are a few more speeding-ups to be done and a few revisions of rules, but even as of now, even as at the date of auction to which I referred, there was a good return on the investment. It could still be made possible. But we see how this corruption takes place. It goes from one to another. One sells a house to a man at an enormous price. He is given a 100 per cent. mortgage at 7 per cent. and he is tempted by the thought of what he could make by letting the basement or the upper three floors. Then he is committed to the moneylender. Then he in turn has to be an exploiter.
There has to be a two-pronged attack on this problem. On the one hand, we want all the drive we can get for the details and the devices, the new kinds of buildings, the conversions, plumbing, etc., but at the end of the day we are defeated if we do not make the other attack on this unproductive section of society, the landowner and the moneylender, who will make all one's work useless and laughable. That is the tragedy which some of us share on both sides of the Committee. Find a solution to that. There is very little joy in trying to be a constructive back bench critic. One gets abuse. One cannot do right, and sometimes one is conscious of the fact that every fresh point that one makes is at the expense of a colleague who can probably make a better speech.

Sir K. Joseph: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way. He has made a most vigorous speech. The


trouble is that when I answer it in three hours' time some Members who have heard the speech may not hear the reply. It is my impression—I should say this now—that the 1961 Act powers, which were passed specifically by the Government because of the conditions to which the hon. Gentleman refers, are, in the hands of a strong-minded local authority, adequate to deal with this situation. I am grateful for the opportunity to say this now.

Mr. Parkin: It is obvious that I must not make another speech now in reply to that intervention. My colleagues can deal with it. All I can say is that we are not altogether agreed. There is a lot still to be done.
I was concluding by saying that it is an unrewarding life being a constructive critic on the back benches. When one is making practical suggestions, one is told that they are dreams, and if one tries to analyse the reasons why they cannot be carried out, one is told that one is mud slinging. There must come a time in the life of every little tick-bird like me, however devoted and assiduous, when he has to go and whisper in the ear of the rhinoceros."Symbiosis, and peaceful co-existence, are all very well, but I have got a bellyache. There are more ticks in the folds of your neck than I can digest. I cannot help any more. You are not even washing yourself now. Deep down there is very nearly every nasty disease in the book in your system. You cannot survive that way. You have got to get at the root of this problem. You cannot survive in your present condition. You are going to drop down in your tracks one day and I may be underneath. I'm off."

6.39 p.m.

Mr. Paul Williams: I think that the Committee and the hon. Member for Paddington, North, (Mr. Parkin) will forgive me if I do not follow the hon. Gentleman into the details of property speculation in Paddington, for that is not a place or a theme on which I am well versed. I intervene in a housing debate with great trepidation. I feel almost as nervous in taking part in this debate as the hon. Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Duffy) must have been in addressing the Chamber for the first time, for in ten years this is the

first occasion when I have intervened on a housing matter.
In spite of what was said by the hon. Member for Paddington, North, I think that one of the greatest bedevilling factors in the housing situation today is the attitude of the Labour Party in its anti-landlordism. I understand completely the hesitation which the hon. Member for Paddington, North will have in accepting that line or argument, but I believe that the Opposition's instinctive criticism of the landlord and the rôle of landlord in our society has done a great deal to make the provision of reasonable housing in the post-war years more difficult.

Mr. Parkin: I shall try to be brief. Will the hon. Gentleman make a distinction in his mind between the landlord as manager with a constructive rôle to play and the land owner who very often has nothing to do with the management of the property but who merely attracts to himself the increased value put into the land by the brains and activity of others?

Mr. Williams: I accept the distinction which the hon. Gentleman draws, but I still assert that the general attitude of hon. and right hon. Members opposite is epitomised by a remark made by the hon. Member for Fulham (Mr. M.Stewart) who, in a not altogether congratulatory way, referred to"some admirable exceptions". It is this sort of attitude which makes prejudice enter in where reason would be a better guide.
This is the attitude of members of the Labour Party also when they talk of developers. So often, instead of speaking of the developer, who has a genuine and honourable rôle in our society, they talk of the speculator. But who in business is not a speculator in one way or another? Even a motor manufacturer is a speculator unless he is making a custom-built Rolls-Royce. Everyone in the British Motor Corporation and all the major motor manufacturing companies is a speculator in the sense that he does not know his customer at the moment the motor car is being made, In the same way, the speculator, or, as I prefer to call him, the developer, in the property world has an essential rôle to play in meeting and providing for a need in advance of the exact demand.
I suggest to my right hon. Friend the Minister that, in talking about housing


in this country, we tend very often to talk in far too limited a sense. The hon. Member for Fulham spoke of the population figures over the next few years. I suggest to my right hon. Friend and the Government that they should look rather more closely at population trends and not consider Britain as a tight little island of 50 million, 60 million, 70 million or 80 million people, whichever period is taken for the forecast, and should remember that there is the possibility of exporting population just as there is the possibility of exporting goods. We should not as a nation look at our problem just in terms of what happens within our shores but, rather, look at the prospects of exporting population as well.
Several hon. Members have said that the basis of a sound society is sound housing. This, of course, is true. It is true also that certain parts of the country are now receiving an almost adequate supply of housing. This, however, is not so in the North-East and in the older industrial parts of the country. The old industrial towns are those where the slums are concentrated and where the greatest effort is needed. I am delighted that, in the White Paper and in the Government's policy, there seems to be a realisation of this, but I am still not convinced that the Government have sufficiently appreciated the needs of the North-East in general.
I am thinking here not just in terms of housing but in terms of the whole range of Government economic policy. If the problems of the North-East are to be solved, it will not be done merely by inducing new industry to come in and provide employment. It will be done by providing that revived and revivified attitude and atmosphere which comes from better housing, better schools, better hospitals and better roads. This is why, at this point in my speech, I appeal to the Minister and the Government to give pole position and prime place not just to the industrial regions in general but to the North-East in particular.
The town of Sunderland may well be a typical example of how old industrial towns rot at their centre and need to be recreated with a new spirit, a new outlook and a new plan. The first problem is shortage of space. Borough boun-

daries are constricting. Boroughs need to acquire land, to gain planning permission, and, in due course, to expand. But this all takes time. I echo the remark of one of my hon. Friends who said earlier that if the work of the Ministry in these matters could be speeded up, consistent with proper safeguards for the just rights of the contenders or the opponents of expansion, the provision of the housing which people need would be greatly assisted.
In Sunderland there are about 12,000 people on the housing list. At the present rate of progress, it will be eight, nine or teal years before the list is cleared, by which time, of course, there will be new entrants. This is not good enough. One welcomes, of course, the target of 350,000 houses mentioned in the programme, but I suggest to my right hon. Friend that more needs to be done outside the two usual elements of the housing programme, that is, the provision of houses for sale and the provision of housing through local authorities. I make five specific recommendations to him.
First, much more should be done to persuade, if not to force, local authorities to charge economic rents, with, of course, rebate schemes to take account of genuine need. Second, as a consequence of that, more needs to be done to encourage private property developers to provide accommodation in flats or houses for rent. Several hon. Members opposite have said that the present policy will lead to the housing corporation and housing societies fulfilling this rôle and not free enterprise. If this is so, I regret that facet of the policy, for it seems to me that it will merely be changing one form of municipalisation for another major landlord. In a free society, we ought to offer people a series of options, a series of choices, and I am not convinced that we shall get it out of this particular policy development in Cmnd. 2050. Indeed, if we could do what I suggest, we should shift much of the financial burden from the State where it rests now on to private finance, and I should have thought that this, under a Conservative Government, would be regarded as well worth while.
Having said that, I support the proposal in the White Paper for the housing corporation and housing societies, although I am not yet convinced that they will work sufficiently closely with


building societies in what they have to do. As my fourth point, I suggest that the building societies themselves take far too conservative a line in regard to the provision of housing. I should like to see a much more positive line of thought and approach coming from the building societies to the provision of new houses and much more stimulus from them to the building trade to modernise itself.
My final point is to urge the development of industrialised housing, mechanised housing, modular housing—call it what one will. As the Minister has said on several occasions, we cannot, with the present building labour force, possibly meet the targets for housing which the nation needs and deserves. It is likely that there will continue to be shortages or at least bottlenecks in the supply of the skilled labour needed. Inevitably, we are bound to change the balance in house production from the traditional methods to the newer, non-traditional and industrialised methods. This is why I regret the attitude of conservatism of some local authorities and the conservatism of some building trade operatives whosee in this trend a danger to the traditional pattern of work and employment. Nothing could be further from the truth. I believe that every building trade operative of skill will find employment, but this alone will not provide the housing that the nation needs. Therefore, we have to find some way of getting these new forms of housing started.
I suspect that one of the major difficulties of any new form of housing is to get the first order of sufficient size to make the prices competitive with the traditional methods. Therefore, I am wondering if my right hon. Friend the Minister cannot use this new Housing Corporation to lay down a few test runs, or provoke a few test runs from all the different companies concerned in producing industrialised housing.
If there could be a choice of perhaps the fifty best, or even the ten best, with two hundred houses from each, this would go some way to getting the costs on a competitive basis and seeing what the houses are like actually on the site. If this money is to be used for housing in any case, it should be used for introducing a new non-traditional form of house building, thereby bringing down the cost at the same time as providing

these extra houses. I suggest to my right hon. Friend that this is the sort of tiling his Ministry might well be now looking at, so that the figure of 350,000, while at the moment a target, can in due course become a pleasant comment on the past when we go to 400,000 houses a year.

6.54 p.m.

Mr. Tom Brown: The Parliamentary Secretary said that he anticipated some criticism from this side of the Committee. I can assure him that he will not be disappointed. So far we have had criticism, and I want to make a further criticism of the administrative side of his Department.
We have a saying in Lancashire, and I am a Lancashire man bred and born,"Speak your mind, yet be kind; give good advice and yet be nice." I shall speak my mind and I shall give some good advice, and I hope that the Minister will take it in the right spirit. I have a very serious complaint to make about the administrative side of the Department. In December, 1960—almost two and a half years ago—there was submitted to the Department what is known as the Maker field town map. On that map there were thirty sites marked by agreement with the local authorities concerned, with the Lancashire County Council, and all concerned with the progress of the reclamation of land. The map was a fulfilment to a very large degree of the pamphlet which the Minister had just issued, life from dead land. That map was a fulfilment of it because it marked 30 sites which had already been agreed upon. That was in December, 1960. Since then, a number of complaints have been made, first by the Lancashire County Council and, secondly, by the local authorities who were concerned with the drawing up and submission of the map.
We are now in July, 1963, and the Ministry has not made up its mind what it is going to do. Therefore, the local authorities are left in a state of bewilderment and embarrassment and they cannot proceed with the building of houses because there is no land upon which to build. I beg of the Minister to tighten up his administrative side and to see whether he can speed up schemes of this character when they are submitted. This did not need legislation. All that was required was an urgent examination


to agree finally on the reclamation of land.
Of course, when land is being reclaimed for any purpose connected with local authorities there are always objections, but those objections have to be overcome or a compulsory purchase order made. In Ince, which I have the honour to represent, there was only one objection. Out of fifteen sites in the township, there was only one objector, and when he was informed that the land was required for the housing of people, he withdrew his objection. The Minister had an opportunity to give consent to the Ince Urban District Council to proceed with the reclamation of that land. Nothing has been done. Interviews have taken place, letters have been written, questions have been asked, and we are still in the same position on 8th July, 1963, as we were in December, 1960. My plea on that score is: will the Minister please speed up the finalising of this town map and tell the county council and the local authorities concerned what he intends doing?
I emphasise what the hon. Member for Holland with Boston (Sir H. Butcher) said in his speech. He said that the Minister ought to make the industrial areas more attractive for new industries. We shall have to do that whether the request comes from that side of the Committee or from this side. We shall never get industrialists to come into the industrial areas such as we have in the north-west, the north-east and the south-west, unless we make the environments more congenial than they are. As the Parliamentary Secretary proceeded with his speech, I anticipated that he would give some hope to those local authorities who are suffering as a result of the legacy which was left by the old industrial system. I shall not make any condemnation of the past industrialists. We have it. We have to deal with it, and the sooner we start to do so, the better it will be.
I give some figures of the position that we have in south-west Lancashire, which has been giving deep mined coal to this nation, essential to the wheels of production of other commodities, since 1546. Any man who has any imagination at all can visualise what that means to a district which has been extracting minerals at the rate it has

of what is left behind—not only damage from mining subsidence, but large tip heaps rearing their ugly heads, destroying the soul of the people, making it difficult for them to enjoy life as they should. In the township of Ince in Maker field, the constituency which I have the honour to represent and in which I was born, there are 162 acres covered by pit heaps. There are 615 acres suffering from mining subsidence and 104 acres of derelict land caused by many other factors, a total in that urban district of 881 acres. Forty per cent. of the acreage of that town ship is derelict land.
I was anticipating, and I am still anticipating, that the Minister—

It being Seven o'clock, The Chairman left the Chair, further Proceeding standing postponed until after the consideration of Private Business set down by direction of The Chairman of Ways and Means under Standing Order No. 7 (Time for Taking Private Business).

Mr. Deputy-Speaker resumed the Chair.

CLYWEDOG RESERVOIR JOINT AUTHORITY BILL [Lords] (By Order)

As amended, further considered.

Clause 79.—(Provision of facilities FOR RECREATION ON RESERVOIR.)

Mr. Emlyn Hooson: I beg to move, in page 49, line 20, after"recreation" to insert:
except motor-boating and water ski-ing".
With your permission, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, and if the House thinks it convenient, I should like to take with this Amendment the Amendment in page 50, line 5, leave out"motor-boating, water ski-ing".
The Amendment in page 49, line 32, after"recreation", insert:
but shall give special consideration to local inhabitants using the said facilities or reservoir"—
is not connected with the other two.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Sir Robert Grimston): It will be convenient to take them together.

Mr. Hooson: I am obliged, Mr. Deputy-Speaker.
This Bill is designed to enable a joint authority to be set up representing 13 statutory authorities and to authorise its members to extract water from the River Severn. So that that abstraction may be carried out, it is the aim and purpose of the Bill to enable a reservoir to be built in the Clywedog Valley which will control the flow of the water down the River Severn. The Severn itself would be used merely as an aquaduct for the conveyance of the dam in the Clywedog Valley.
The Clywedog Valley is situated about three miles from the small town of Llandiloes, in Mid-Wales, where I live. It is a beautiful, secluded valley. It is off the beaten track. Not many tourists go there. It is the discriminating, knowledgeable country lover who usually goes to the Clywedog Valley. Even the roads which lead to it are extremely narrow. This valley, which contains one of the tributaries of the Severn, runs parallel to the Severn Valley from the mountain basin of Plynlimmon.
If the Bill is implemented, there will be a reservoir in the Clywedog Valley of about four miles in length. Its depth at its deepest point will be 225 ft. and it will submerge between 500 and 700 acres of land. For those hon. Members who are interested, there was a delightful photograph of this valley in The Times of 26th July last year which I recommend all country lovers particularly to look at. One of the essential qualities of this valley is its seclusion and peace. It is"far from the madding crowd" and away from any industrial development. It is one of the relatively few places in our country to which one can go for almost complete peace. The only noise which one may hear is that of a tractor, the bleating of sheep, the lowing of cows, or the swish of the fisherman's rod, since it is a very good fishing area too.
The people who live there are, in the main, farmers, and shepherds. Since 1915, there has been a camp of the Birmingham Central Grammar School near a farm called Bryntail to which boys have been able to go from Birmingham to enjoy the peace and country pursuits of the area.
The Bill provides for the preservation of the amenities of the area. Clause 77(1) provides:
In the construction of the works authorised by this Act the Authority shall have regard to the preservation for the public of the natural beauty of the area in which those works are situate and the enjoyment of the area by the public.
That is a general Clause providing for the preservation of amenities. One amenity is undoubtedly the quiet which is to be enjoyed there and the essential rural nature of the area.
No one who knows this valley could possibly conceive of allowing motor boats or speed boats drawing water-skiers to be operated there. It is not that I am opposed to the idea of water ski-ing or motor-boating. These are very desirable sports and I have nothing to say against them, but there is a place for everything in our community and the Clywedog Valley is certainly not the place for this type of sport. In my view, it would be completely alien to the desirable amenities in this rural area.
Admittedly the area is to be changed when the valley is submerged, and there are many people who may say that some Welsh valleys have been improved by the reservoirs which we find in them. That may be so, but I do not think that anyone has yet suggested that we should turn them into a kind of Black pool or have the kind of sports which are incompatible with the districts in which they are situated.
I turn to the provisions of Clause 79 which, in my view, are incompatible with the general requirements of Clause 77. Under Clause 79,
The Authority may provide facilities on the reservoir for the purposes of such forms of recreation for the public as they may think fit, but shall have due regard to the preservation of the wholesomeness of water to be supplied by them under section 49 (Supply of water in bulk to Montgomery shire Water Board) of this Act.
The Amendment in page 49, line 20, would amend that subsection by adding after"such forms of recreation" the words
except motor-boating and water ski-ing".
The Amendment in page 50, line 5, which amends subsection (6,a,i) is consequential on that in line 20 because subsection (6) simply allows byelaws to be made regulating, among other matters, motor-boating and water ski-ing.
It seems to me that in Clause 79 the drafters of the Bill have slavishly followed a provision in the Great Ouse Act, 1961. I am not here concerned with the question of precedents generally; the drafters of the Bill can go where they like for their precedents. I am concerned with a particular district and a particular provision. I am not opposed to a reservoir, if it is built in Wales, being used for amenities. For example, I do not object to the idea of sailing boats using this reservoir. I do not object to the pursuit of fishing or other recreational facilities of this kind. What I do object to very much is the idea of motor-boating and water ski-ing being carried on there. It is tragic enough that a valley of this kind should be submerged at all and I believe that the House of Commons must look carefully into all proposals of this kind, before coming to a conclusion whether the valley should be submerged, to ensure that there is a crying public need for it and that the necessity from the public point of view overrides the other considerations.
There is a happy rural community in this area. Conceding that the need for this reservoir is established, we should try to preserve its character as much as possible. We should try to preserve the character of the countryside not only in Wales but in all other parts of Great Britain. The number of areas of our country which are still havens of peace where one can escape from the artificiality and noise of city life is decreasing. This is such an area.
In my view, there is no place for the noisy speed boat and water ski-ing on the Clywedog reservoir. May I say to those who are fond of this sport that I believe that there is a place for it in other areas, but not in this sort of country area? Whether it is in England, Wales or Scotland does not particularly worry me. Therefore, the House should accept the Amendment, whereby we ensure that the Authority cannot in the future allow this kind of sport on the reservoir, as it would be allowed by the Bill.
It might be suggested that this is a permissive provision only. The promoters of the Bill have already indicated that they are prepared to accept the Amendment. Even so, once we have this kind of provision in a Bill, pressure is always brought by certain

sections of the community to enforce the power that the Authority would always have. Therefore, one's only safeguard is for the House of Commons to ensure that the Bill does not contain this provision.
This matter was first raised in another place by Lord Chorley when the matter was debated in the House of Lords. I understand that the hon. Member for Stalybridge and Hyde (Mr. Blackburn) raised the matter in the Unopposed Bills Committee of this House, but that he was assured that nobody had protested very much about this provision. That was not quite correct, although I accept that the assurance was given inadvertently, because I understand that this matter was raised at the town meeting in Birmingham and that 500 old boys of the Birmingham Central Grammar School had signed a petition concerning it. Various organisations had already written to the promoters complaining about this provision in the Bill. However, the promoters are prepared to accept the Amendment. Suffice it to say that there is considerable support for my Amendments.
My last point is purely a constituency point but, nevertheless, an important one from the public point of view. The Montgomeryshire Water Board, one of the 13 authorities constituting the Joint Authority, is the only authority which will draw its water direct from the reservoir. All the other authorities will abstract the water from the river as it flows down. Naturally, the people of Montgomeryshire are concerned with the wholesomeness of the water which they draw from the river. They are concerned also with the expense of purifying plant.
I understand that if, for example, sailing boats and fishing are allowed, the question of purification is a minor one. If, on the other hand, any number of motor boats are allowed on the reservoir, much more complicated problems of purification and of preserving the wholesomeness of the water will be created. This is an additional, although not a major, reason for ensuring that motor boats and water ski-ing are not allowed on the reservoir.

Mr. James Griffiths: I should like to begin by saying a word to


my colleagues from Birmingham. I pay tribute to their authority and to all those responsible for the care they have shown concerning the Elan Valley, one of the lovely places in Wales, to which they came many years ago to establish a similar water scheme. I am not old enough to know, but I have met people who are old enough to be able to say that the Elan Valley is more beautiful now that it was in the days before Birmingham came and took it over.
We get many of these water Bills concerning Wales and it is time that we began to consider whether our present system of doing this is the right one. My view is that the time has come when there should be complete public ownership of water, and I should like to see Wales have its own Welsh water board. That, however, is another matter.
I hope that the Minister and out friends from Birmingham have listened to what the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Hooson) has said. His is a county in which the population is less than it was a century ago. It is a county with grave economic problems. I and my colleagues think that it needs a new focal point of growth. We have made our proposals, which, I hope, will be approved by the country in the not too distant future. Montgomeryshire is a county which over the generations has suffered by continually losing its people. It is a community which has very deep associations with a good deal that is best in Welsh life.
I do not know whether the Minister has heard of Llanbrynmair. If he mentions that name to any man or woman in Wales, or to any Welsh man or woman throughout the world, it will at once conjure up two sets of initials—S.R. and J.R., who played a notable part in the development of Nonconformist radicalism in Wales in the last century. It is, therefore, a place that evokes emotions.

7.15 p.m.

We ought to pay attention to what people think about their neighbourhood. Love of a neighbourhood can be very strong and deep. There is an old French proverb to the effect that the most enduring form of patriotism is stupid patriotism. This kind of concern is never

fully understood. I hope, therefore, that what the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery has said will be listened to.

In the town which I represent in South Wales, we are very fortunate. We do not have many places left where we can say with poetic measure that we can stand and stare. We dare not stand and if we stare, we stare at the noise up above. That is not like W. H. Davies in"Leisure". I am proud that we have kept the Gower. I hope that we always keep it. I hope that my compatriots will fight to the death before they allow the Gower to become what some of our coastline has become. We must have some places where we can get away from noise.

I speak as an old coalminer. The lot of the coalminer has improved a great deal. His life has improved. There is, however, one thing that the present-day miner is subjected to that I was not. I am almost terrified of the noise in which he works for six or seven hours every day. He needs a bit of rest sometimes and a holiday. Certainly, those of middle age and beyond deserve a place where they can go and rest.

I am glad to know that the promoters of the Bill have agreed to the Amendment. That being so, I hope that nobody else objects. If they agree that in the setting of the Clywedog Valley it is desirable to preserve the amenities and prevent noise, and the local people think that if ski-ing and motor-boating are allowed they will add noise to an area which is so peaceful and restful, I say to my Birmingham and Coventry colleagues that that is not too much to give to a county which is providing them with water. It is not too much to give to Mid-Wales.

But for the water of Mid-Wales, Birmingham would come to a stop tomorrow. The local people are not asking too much. Their local authorities have co-operated in every way possible. Now, through the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery, the county asks that the promoters should accept the Amendment. This is not too much to ask and having regard to the local co-operation, I hope that the promoting authorities and those who speak for them in this House will accept the Amendment.

Mr. Denis Howell: I speak as a Birmingham Member and I should like, if permissible, to speak on behalf of the promoters of the Bill. I should correct the record to start with. I do not think the position is that the promoters have agreed to accept the Amendment.

Mr. Eric Lubbock: Yes, they have.

Mr. Howell: The position is that the promoters are neutral about it. It arrives at a very late stage of the Bill.

Mr. Jeremy Thorpe: rose—

Mr. Howell: The hon. Member must wait until I have finished. I speak now for myself and I think that the Amendments have been put down unreasonably at a very late stage of the Bill. Faced with the need to pass this tremendously important Bill, affecting not simply Birmingham, but the whole of the Midlands, the promoters said that if the price of getting the Bill through—and they thought that it was an unopposed Bill—was acceptance of the Amendment, they were prepared to pay that price. That was the situation.
The promoters were prepared to accept the Amendment because of that, but other interests have now come forward and have objected to the objectors: they object to the Amendment being put forward. That is now the situation. The Bill is wanted for the purpose of getting water for the industrial heart of this country, and although there are views about this Bill and I shall expand on them in a moment, so far as the mechanics are concerned the promoters would do anything which the House asked them to do to guarantee the Bill a safe passage. That is the situation, I think.

Mr. Thorpe: I am sure that the hon. Member wants the record to be as accurate as other hon. Members in the House would wish it. I am not certain whether he was in the House when the Privilege matter was originally raised—I think two Mondays back—but it will be within his recollection that the letter from the promoters was to the effect that the committee of promoters was prepared to agree

to the Amendments which had been proposed, and then there was a condition precedent,
subject to you and the other Members…refraining from further opposition…"—[Official Report, 24th June, 1963; Vol. 679, c. 952.]
As I understand it, that is now withdrawn by the apology the next day, and whether the Amendments would be agreed to of not. I do not think it is for us to question their motives. They went on the record as being not in opposition, or reluctantly in agreement, but in agreement.

Mr. Howell: That was a fascinating speech by way of interruption, but I think it confirms what I was saying, that the promoters would not object. But others have objected. So the position of the promoters is that they want the Bill and were prepared to have this consideration if the House wished it, and they would not object, as long as that would not hold up the main part of the Bill.

Mr. John Morris: Do I understand that my hon. Friend is saying that the view of the promoters is that they are withdrawing their letter addressed to myself and to other hon. Members?

Mr. Howell: They are doing no such thing. I think I made it perfectly clear. My hon. Friend the Member for Aberavon (Mr. Morris) has his name to this Amendment, but why he has, I just cannot fathom at all, and I want to deal with that in a moment in a kindly way.
Before doing that, however, I would say that it seems to me and, I think, to the promoters, too, a rather peculiar business, that a Bill which has been the subject of a town meeting and a town poll and which has passed through all its stages in the Lords and through the House of Commons should be subject to this sort of Amendment at the very last minute. I am not suggesting that hon. Members have not a right to try to amend it now. They obviously have, and that is why we are discussing the Amendment, but I do not myself think that it is in the best Parliamentary traditions to leave this sort of Amendment to this very last stage in the proceedings on a Bill. [An Hon. Member:"Nonsense."] The hon. Member may say it is nonsense. That is a subject on


which, I readily admit, he knows a great deal.
The fact is we have spent a long time considering this Bill, and Clause 79 follows almost exactly the provisions in the Great Ouse Water Act, 1961, in respect of which the hon. Member for Montgomery—[Hon. Members:"Honourable and learned."] yes, and learned, although by the tenor of these Amendments I have a little doubt about it. The hon. and learned Member suggested that we ought not slavishly to follow precedents, but I would say to him that I thought that that was what the law was all about—the question of precedents. I have no doubt that the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery has argued many handsome briefs by quoting precedents for days and days in the courts. In fact, the question of precedents is of extreme importance in the law of our country, and I would kindly ask the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery to consider what is the position of promoters of Private Bills.
If this House says it wishes a certain provision to be in a Private Bill, then the promoters of the next Private Bill look at that preceding one. It is the only thing to guide them as to what Parliament has said and Parliament has done before. In this case the promoters saw that Parliament as recently as 1961 decreed a provision in exactly identical terms, and they ought not to be castigated in this House for believing that Parliament, two years later, in 1963, is going to apply the same views. That is precisely the position here.
When the Great Ouse Bill was in Committee of this House this specific proposal was put in at the instigation of the hon. Member for Nantwich (Mr. Grant-Ferris) who was the Chairman of that Committee. When a Member of this House sitting as the Chairman of a Committee on a Private Bill decrees this specific provision, saying that it ought to be in the Bill, then I submit that the promoters of this Bill are not to be castigated for believing they are doing the right thing in following exactly the same course as that already taken.
But it is not only the Great Ouse Act which contains this provision. We have a precedent which is far more recent than that, as the Joint Parlia-

mentary Secretary well knows. I say with great respect to my hon. Friend the Member for Aberavon that we have just been I do not know how many weeks working on the Water Resources Bill and sitting very late to deal with it.
I would say to my right hon. Friend the Member for Llanelly (Mr. J. Griffiths), whose very kind remarks about Birmingham are much appreciated, that in Standing Committee upstairs we have been doing precisely what he suggested we ought to do, and that is, looking at the whole of the water resources. This may be the last time that Parliament considers a Bill of this sort or that a Private Bill of this sort comes before the House, because the Water Resources Bill, I can tell my right hon. Friend, is doing precisely what he suggested we ought to do.
The hon. Member for Aberavon, like myself, sat on that Standing Committee on the Water Resources Bill during its long and tedious Committee stage and he well knows that Clause 79 of the Water Resources Bill is exactly the same, by a remarkable coincidence, as Clause 79 of the Bill now before the House. Incidentally, my hon. Friend did not raise any objection to that other Clause. 79. I am rather surprised that he is now supporting Amendments to this Bill and objecting to this provision here for the Midlands and Birmingham when less than three weeks ago in Standing Committee on the Water Resources Bill he did not object to exactly the same Clause.

Mr. Thorpe: We are not objecting to the Clause.

Mr. Howell: Hon. Members are objecting to this Clause 79. I am sorry that the Liberal Party is getting disturbed, but what they are objecting to at the moment is Clause 79 as it is drawn, and they are attempting to amend it.
I am just saying that my hon. Friend the Member for Aberavon and myself sat in Standing Committee upstairs less than three weeks ago and passed a Clause for the whole water industry of this country, a Clause in terms identical with those of this one, and it would be absolutely ludicrous, in my view—and this is why I disagree with these Amendments, leaving aside, for the moment, the question of noise about which I have


some sympathy with hon. Members—for this House, having agreed to a provision for the whole of the water resources of this country, now to say that that provision will apply to everybody except the promoters of this Bill.

Mr. J. Griffiths: Will my hon. Friend let me put this point to him very seriously? He will realise that we all have an interest in this. My county will be affected shortly. Do I understand that he is putting forward the view that if local feelings about a particular aspect of this problem are expressed upon a new Bill we ought to object to that?

7.30 p.m.

Mr. Howell: Not at all. I want the position to be carried to the point of Parliamentary logic. I say that it is illogical of my hon. Friend the Member for Aberavon not to object to Clause 79 of a Bill which affects the water resources of the country as a whole and then to object to Clause 79 of this Bill. That is the only point I wish to make, and I shall not carry the argument any further.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Llanelly pertinently raised the question of local objections. I come back to what was said by the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery. Two of the promotors of the Bill are the Montgomeryshire County Council and the Montgomeryshire Water Board, and they have agreed to it. I do not suggest that the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery does not understand local feeling—he obviously does—but surely his own local authority, is well seized of public feeling on this matter? Has the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery made any representations either to the Montgomeryshire County Council or to the Montgomeryshire Water Board in connection with these Amendments? I ask that because they had no idea that they were to be tabled until they appeared on the Notice Paper.

Mr. Hooson: It was the members of that authority who informed us that they accepted the Amendments.

Mr. Howell: This is a complicated Bill containing 90 Clauses. It took a great deal of time to prepare, and it received a good deal of local publicity.

The hon. and learned Gentleman has had every opportunity, at town meetings and town polls, to express his objections to this Clause, but he has never done so. He has waited until this late Parliamentary stage to put forward his objections. I am not suggesting that he ought not to have made his objections known, but if any other hon. Member had objections to a Bill, I feel certain that he would have made them known before the Bill reached this stage. His objections would certainly have been made at a much earlier stage if he was acting in co-operation with his local authority, and this again shows the unreasonableness of objections being made at this stage of our proceedings.
Like my right hon. Friend the Member for Llanelly, I think that it is blessed to be able to stand and stare. As W. H. Davies asked
What is this life if, full of care,
We have no time to stand and stare?
But life these days is different from what it was when W. H. Davies wrote that poem. There are many people in sedentary occupations, clerical workers and so on, who, during their leisure hours, like to pursue an active sport.

Mr. J. Griffiths: There are plenty of other places for that.

Mr. Howell: The whole discussion is about a proposal to give this authority power to make byelaws. The promoting authorities have not said that they will allow motor-boating or water-ski-ing. What the objectors are doing is taking a pessimistic view of the future of the motor-boat industry in this country. I agree that motor boats make a lot of noise, but at some time in the future manufacturers might be able to produce a more silent engine. It would then be ludricrous to prevent them enjoying motor-boating simply because, when this Measure was going through the House, nothing was said about noise.
There is nothing more that I want to say about these two Amendments. [Hon. Members:"Hear, hear."] I gather that hon. Members have not taken very kindly to my speech. That shows that it is reasonable and pertinent, and the sort of speech to which the House ought to listen. I shall have a word to say about the other Amendment later.
I am opposed to these Amendments because of the unreasonable way in which they have been put forward. There is no evidence that the local authorities want them. Parliament has enacted the Great Ouse Act, and a Standing Committee has dealt with the Water Resources Bill. No objection was raised to similar provisions in these two Measures, and I cannot understand why the promoters of this Bill have singled out Birmingham, Coventry and the rest of the Midlands for this treatment.

Mr. John Morris: The hon. Member for Birmingham, Small Heath (Mr. Denis Howell) mentioned me several times in the course of his most interesting speech. I am sure that his speech will not endear him to the Welsh people. In view of the co-operation which the County of Montgomery has given in the preparation of this Bill, it is rather sad that a Member representing the City of Birmingham, which will be one of the main beneficiaries of the Bill, has sought to make a speech of this nature. Strong feelings are held in Wales on these issues; feelings about which my hon. Friend knows very little. My hon. Friend expressed views which he no doubt holds sincerely, but in view of the views held by local people about our most valuable asset, our water resources, it is unfortunate that my hon. Friend made the speech that he did.
What are the objections to these Amendments? First, it is said that those Members who put their names to them were unreasonable in tabling them at this stage of the Bill's progress. Surely it is open to hon. Members to take whatever course they think fit at any stage of any Bill? That is what we are here for and nothing that my hon. Friend can say will stop hon. Members exercising their constitutional rights. If the Amendments were not in order they would not have been accepted by the Table, and it is therefore unreasonable of my hon. Friend to object to the action taken by us.
The other point made by my hon. Friend was that I said nothing about Clause 79 of the Water Resources Bill when it was being discussed in Committee. I agree that that Bill does many of the things which we want to do, but

it does not contain a Clause to set up a Welsh water board. I would be out of order if I were to advance arguments setting out the many advantages that would accrue to Wales if such a board were set up, but the Minister has promised to look at this matter again, and, if I understand the position aright, to bring forward some proposals on Report.
The comparison which my hon. Friend seeks to make between my silence on Clause 79 of the Water Resources Bill and what I have said about this Bill is rather ridiculous. My hon. Friend has obviously not read Clause 79 of the Water Resources Bill, because there is nothing in it about motor-boating and water ski-ing. He sought to make the point that Clause 79 of that Bill was on all fours with the Clause under consideration. It may be due to old age, but my hon. Friend's memory does not appear to be very good, and I hope that he will refresh it before this discussion is concluded. If he reads Clause 79 of the Water Resources Bill, he will see quite clearly that it is not on all fours with the matter we are discussing.
In the Clause in the Water Resources Bill there is a general provision to permit use by members of the public for the purposes of any form of recreation which the river authority considers appropriate. That is a general provision and this Bill goes on to deal with a particular. While one may be silent about a general provision in one Bill, one's course of action may be entirely different in dealing with a particular provision in another Bill.
We are here considering water ski-ing and motor-boating in the context of the Clywedog Valley, and it is the duty of hon. Members to consider forms of recreation which are not mentioned by name in a general provision in another Bill. My hon. Friend the Member for Small Heath was quite wrong when he said that as I had been silent about a general provision in another Bill I should therefore be debarred, ipso facto, from discussing a particular provision in the Bill.
The third matter is this. From his opening remarks, it seemed that my hon. Friend the Member for Small Heath was speaking on behalf of himself and the promoters. He sought to make the point that the promoters were now taking a neutral stand


and that their original agreement, in which they had signified their intention to those of us who had put their names to this Amendment, no longer held good. The letter which I and other hon. Members received was on these lines:
We are instructed to inform you that the Committee of the Promoters of the Bill this morning considered the Amendments standing in your name to be moved on consideration. The Committee are prepared to agree to those Amendments subject to you and the other Members who put their names to the Amendments refraining from further opposition to the Bill.
The latter part of that proposal has been held to be a prima facie breach of Privilege, and that would therefore fall and would leave the words merely as:
The Committee are prepared to agree to those Amendments.
Those of us who have put down these Amendments have not received any suggestion from the promoters, as far as I know, of their withdrawing from this position, and, so far as I know, the promoters are still prepared to agree to these Amendments.
I ask hon. Members seriously to consider the Amendment so ably moved by the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery and supported by my right hon. Friend the Member for Llanelly (Mr. J. Griffiths). My right hon. Friend spoke about noise. We are dealing with a most beautiful valley which so far has not suffered from what only last week was described as the hazard of noise, a hazard to health in particular. I hope that the House will agree to the Amendment.

7.45 p.m.

Mr. John Wells: I hope that the House will reject the Amendment. In the original Clause 79 the Bill contains clear provisions to enable the Authority to control water ski-ing and motor-boating so closely that they never need be a nuisance to local people. Every hon. Member appreciated the pleasant and lyrical way in which the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Hooson) spoke about his own home area. We appreciate the beauty which he described to us, but the fact remains that he makes a grave error when he says that he is not concerned with precedent. This is what alarms me, because it is well known that promoters of Private Bills always look at the last relevant Bill

and take it—I will not say word for word—in large slices.
If there should be a similar Bill—and I say similar and not identical because I am well aware that, as a result of the Water Resources Bill, there will never again be a Bill identical with this—dealing with kindred purposes and the promoters of that Bill observe that the House of Commons does not like water ski-ing in this or that area, undesirable Amendments will be written into that future Bill.
I hope that the House will reject the Amendment. As the hon. Member for Birmingham, Small Heath (Mr. Denis Howell) rightly pointed out, the British motor boat industry is making great advances with improvements in silencing and efficiency. There are many industrial and office workers who want to enjoy open spaces and if, inadvertently as a result of these Amendments, there was some future restriction on water ski-ing elsewhere, which is what I fear, a grave disservice would be done to the cause of leisure.

Mr. Hooson: Is not the hon. Member aware that the House of Lords in Committee has already amended Clause 33 and radically changed its provisions, provisions which obtained in the Great Ouse Act?

Mr. Wells: That may well be, but I am concerned not with Clause 33 but with the Amendments to Clause 79. When promoters of Private Bills want to provide a similar Measure in future, they look at the last relevant Bill, and this will be that last relevant Bill. I hope that the House will reject the Amendment, bearing in mind the fundamental fact that under subsection (1) the Authority will have to have due regard to the preservation of the wholesomeness of the water, that under subsection (6) it will have power to make byelaws regulating sailing and motor boating and so on, and that under paragraph (iii) of subsection (6,a) it will be able to forbid the passing into the water of any injurious matter, whether solid or fluid. The Authority will have sufficient power, and I hope that the House will reject the Amendments.

Mr. Roderic Bowen: I support the Amendments. Several hon. Members have spent a considerable time


discussing precedent and procedure, but in deciding whether to accept the Amendments our prime consideration should be their merit, particularly in relation to the Bill as a whole.
When the Bill is implemented, there will be created in this valley a delightful artificial lake in beautiful and peaceful surroundings. There is no doubt that the number of people who will visit and enjoy those surroundings will be substantially increased. Therefore we should be particularly careful that nothing is done to detract from the pleasure and enjoyment of the people who live in the area and those who visit it.
The Amendments are directed towards dealing with noise. The main interest of the hon. Member for Maids-tone (Mr. J. Wells)—I make no quarrel about it—is that the motor boat industry should not have its development hindered by restrictions of this kind. If we are balancing the perfectly genuine honourable interests of the motor boat industry with the question of the amenity of a valley, in these circumstances it is quite clear where our duty lies.

Mr. J. Wells: I am afraid the hon. and learned Member has put some words into my mouth. I said specifically that I was concerned about the pleasure of many people and mentioned the motor boat industry only in passing.

Mr. Bowen: I am concerned with the pleasure of people, both those who live in the Clywedog area and those who visit it. The Bill provides for recreational facilities in the area. There are plenty of recreational facilities which could be provided without making noise which will interfere with the pleasure of others. I should have thought that in this respect the hon. Member for Small Heath would be doing great disservice not only to the population of Clywedog but to his constituents who will be visiting the area. In the last few days a report has been presented to Parliament by a committee which has been considering the problem of noise. Two paragraphs in that Report might well have been written with these Amendments in mind.

Mr. Denis Howell: I do not want to be tendentious or carry this argument too far, but would the hon. and learned Member deal with this question? If we

are to have noise in our society, is it not better to have it in remote places where no one lives than in large towns?

Mr. Bowen: There are places where people can go and expect to find noise there, but there still remain places to which people can go in order to have peace. One of the objects of these Amendments is to see that there shall still be places in that category.
I was referring to the very valuable Report we have just received. The two paragraphs in it which I have in mind are headed, very appropriately,"Noise from Boats" and"Noise in the Country". Under the heading"Noise from Boats" the Report says:
In the last few years noise from motor-boats on rivers, lakes and the sea has begun to cause complaint and in some areas to become a nuisance. With the growing popularity of motor-boating and water-ski-ing the nuisance is likely to become worse and more widespread unless preventive measures are taken.
It is with that sentiment in mind that I support these Amendments. Under"Noise in the Country", the Report says:
There is no doubt that the countryside is getting noisier",
The hon. Member for Small Heath apparently thinks that that can be a pleasing development. The paragraph goes on to say:
We have noted in Chapter XI the greater number of townspeople who are now able to visit and find their recreation in the countryside tends to increase the noise there. We hope that in such places as National Parks and National Trust properties endeavours will be made to preserve, or create, havens of quiet where those who wish to can escape from noise for a time.
Those who oppose these Amendments are those who want to destroy—to use the phrase used in the Report—"havens of quiet". The paragraph goes on to say:
In fact most of the noises that occur in towns also occur in the country, but to different degrees,
I believe this sentence is of importance:
It must be remembered, however, that the same noise may give rise to greater annoyance in the country on account of the lower background noise, and for the same reason a lesser noise may still cause significant annoyance.
From the purely noise angle these Amendments have very considerable


merit. It may well be that these matters have been raised at a late stage, but at whatever stage they have been raised they have great merit in them, and I commend them to the House.

Mr. Charles A. Howell: I intervene for only a few seconds to get one or two things on the record corrected.
The hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Hooson), who moved the Amendment, referred to a petition signed by a number of grammar school boys in Birmingham. He should have made perfectly clear that that petition was not supporting these Amendments or making any reference to these Amendments, but was opposing the Bill. It would have been rather infra dig if any of the grammar school boys had the privilege of going camping in this beautiful part of Wales—I accept all that the hon. and learned Member said about it—but that right was denied to the next generation. I do not think it was quite fair for the hon. and learned Member to say that he had the support of these grammar school boys.
I was surprised to find that every one of the four hon. Members who have supported this Amendment, and three are in the legal fraternity, used an argument which was contrary to what is followed in that profession, the use of precedents. After all, this House works on precedents.

Mr. J. Griffiths: I am not a learned Member.

Mr. Howell: I excluded my right hon. Friend when I referred to learned Members. They put me in mind of so many hon. Members opposite who, when we were discussing another Bill, dealing with transport, supported it so long as it would not close branch lines in their areas. Apparently we can have a Water Resources Bill dealing with the whole of Britain, but hon. Members do not want it to apply to their own particular areas.
I shall in future have to regard my hon. Friend the Member for Aberavon (Mr. J. Morris) as the hon. Member for Wales because he said that he was speaking for the people of Wales. He did not, however, tell us of anyone in Aberavon who supported this Amendment. The hon. and learned Member for Mont-

gomery did not tell us that any petition had been got up by anyone objecting to this point in the Bill. I do not know for whom he was speaking. They have not revealed themselves and neither of the hon. Members has revealed that to us.
Is it suggested that Birmingham people would take motor boats to this area? Is it suggested that people from Coventry will lead a contingent of motor boats there? The only people who would use motor boats if that were allowed—and the Bill would merely give permission for motor boats—would be Montgomeryshire people. If there is any objection it cannot be against the people in my constituency nor those in the constituencies of my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Small Heath (Mr. Denis Howell) or Coventry, East (Mr. Crossman).
The hon. and learned Member should be clear about this. He would be stopping his own people doing these things, but he says that they do not want to do them. I apologise to my right hon. Friend in that I have difficulty in pronouncing Clywedog—

Mr. J. Griffiths: My hon. Friend does it very well.

Mr. Howell: The hon. and learned Member for Montomery said that very few people knew Clywedog or even how to get there and that the roads were very narrow. All that will change. In the Derbyshire district there is the Lady Bower Dam, a beautiful place which people did not know about some time ago, but now it has become known one cannot get near it for motor cars. If this is so beautiful—and I am sure that it must be—it will become not only a beauty spot but a place to which thousands of Welsh people will go in their motor cars. I suggest that from some areas they will even go out picnicking to this beautiful spot—which will be far worse than motor boats.

Mr. J. Griffiths: On a point of order. Are we to have any advice from the Government?

8.0 p.m.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Housing and Local Government (Mr. F. V. Corfield): I do not think that I can help the House much


on this matter because the Government do not take a very strong view either way.

I accept the suggestion of the right hon. Member for Llanelly (Mr. J. Griffiths) that this is not directly comparable with the Great Ouse Water Act. In that Act this Clause was put in at a fairly late stage and the Government representative before the Committee made a plea that it should not be regarded as a precedent for all future reservoirs. There is, on the other hand, this other difference. I understand that there is no direct abstraction at all from the Great Ouse reservoir, whereas there will be direct abstraction here for the Montgomeryshire Water Board.

I must, however, give some support to the hon. Member for Birmingham, Small Heath (Mr.Denis Howell) because it is relevant to remember that we have been considering the Water Resources Bill and, if anything the Government have been pressed to go rather further to allow discretion in these matters than was originally written into the Bill. In that Bill the discretion is left with the river authorities. As the hon. Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Charles A. Howell) said, this is the crux; we are not dealing with a decision whether we shall have motor boats on this lake, for we are asked either definitely not to have them or to give discretion.

Mr. Bowen: This is the only opportunity which the House will have to decide that question.

Mr. Corfield: It is the only opportunity which the House will have to decide to give a complete bar against these operations in this case.
The Water Resources Bill contains provisions by which river authorities may in the future take over reservoirs in their area. I will not forecast the fate of this reservoir, but it is the sort of reservoir which might well come under an Order in the future, and in that event there would be public inquiries and the hearing of objections. If that is so, it seems a little illogical to have a provision written in which would not apply to other reservoirs, many of which are in Wales and are in beautiful valleys.
On balance, therefore, the sensible thing, I think, is to leave it to the discretion of the Authority, but the Government do not take a strong line. I am always influenced by the eloquence of the right hon. Member for Llanelly and by the local patriotism—I come from just over the Border and I understand it well; but I believe that this is sound advice.

Question put, That those words be there inserted in the Bill: —

The House divided: Ayes 77, Noes 70.

Division No. 159.]
AYES
[8.5 p.m.


Abse, Leo
Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)
Probert, Arthur


Awbery, Stan (Bristol, Central)
Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)
Randall, Harry


Barnett, Guy
Grimond, Rt. Hon. J.
Rees, Merlyn (Leeds, S.)


Bence, Cyril
Hamilton, William (West Fife)
Robertson, John (Paisley)


Bennett, J. (Glasgow, Bridgeton)
Harper, Joseph
Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)


Biffen, John
Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere (Macclesf'd)
Robson Brown, Sir William


Blyton, William
Hayman, F. H.
Shepherd, William


Bowen, Roderic (Cardigan)
Hill, J. (Midlothian)
Slater, Mrs. Harriet (Stoke, N.)


Boyden, James
Hooson, H. E.
Snow, Julian


Brockway, A. Fenner
Hoy, James H.
Spriggs, Leslie


Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)
Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)
Symonds, J. B.


Carmichael, Neil
Hunter, A. E.
Thomas, Iorwerth (Rhondda, W.)


Cooke, Robert
Jones, Elwyn (West Ham, S.)
Thomas, Sir Leslie (Canterbury)


Craddock, Sir Beresford (Spelthorne)
Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)
Thomson, G. M. (Dundee, E.)


Dalyell, Tam
Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)
Thorpe, Jeremy


Darling, George
Kelley, Richard
Wade, Donald


Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)
Kenyon, Clifford
Warbey, William


Davies, Harold (Leek)
Lipton, Marcus
White, Mrs. Elrene


Davies, Ifor (Gower)
McBride, N.
Wilkins, W. A.


Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)
Mellish, R. J.
Willey, Frederick


Dempsey, James
Milne, Edward
Williams, W. R. (Openshaw)


Dodds, Norman
Mitchison, G. R.
Wills, Sir Gerald (Bridgwater)


Evans, Albert
Morgan, William
Woollam, John


Farey-Jones, F. W.
Moyle, Arthur



Finch, Harold
O'Malley, B. K.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES: 


Galpern, Sir Myer
Pargiter, G. A.
Mr. Morris and Mr. Lubbock.


Greenwood, Anthony
Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd)





NOES


Barlow, Sir John
Fraser, Ian (Plymouth, Sutton)
MacColl, James


Barter, John
Glover, Sir Douglas
Marshall, Sir Douglas


Baxter, Sir Beverley (Southgate)
Grant-Ferris, R.
Matthews, Gordon (Meriden)


Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gos &amp; Fhm)
Green, Alan
Maydon, Lt.-Cmdr, S. L. C.


Bottomley, Rt. Hon. A. G.
Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.W.)
Page, Graham (Crosby)


Braine, Bernard
Harrison, Brian (Maldon)
Pannell, Norman (Kirkdale)


Brooman-White, R.
Henderson, John (Cathcart)
Pitt, Dame Edith


Brown, Alan (Tottenham)
Herbison, Miss Margaret
Pott, Percivall


Brown, Rt. Hon. George (Belper)
Hiley, Joseph
Prior-Palmer, Brig, Sir Otho


Bullus, Wing Commander Eric
Hirst, Geoffrey
Rankin, John


Burden, F. A.
Hocking, Philip N.
Seymour, Leslie


Butcher, Sir Herbert
Holland, Philip
Shaw, M.


Cary, Sir Robert
Hollingworth, John
Sorensen, R. W.


Cliffe, Michael
Howell, Charles A. (Perry Barr)
Steward, Harold (Stockport, S.)


Cooper-Key, Sir Neill
Hughes Hallett, Vice-Admiral John
Swain, Thomas


Crossman, R. H. S.
Hughes-Young, Michael
Taylor, Frank (M'ch'st'r, Moss Side)


Deer, George
Jeger, George
Temple, John M.


Digby, Simon Wingfield
Kerans, Cdr. J. S.
Thompson, Sir Kenneth (Walton)


Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. M.
Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.
Turner, Colin


Duthie, Sir William
King, Dr. Horace
Ward, Dame Irene


Ede, Rt. Hon. C.
Kitson, Timothy
Wells, John (Maidstone)


Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)
Lagden, Godfrey
Williams, Paul (Sunderland, S.)


Emmet, Hon. Mrs. Evelyn
Lilley, F. J. P.



Fisher, Nigel
McAdden, Sir Stephen
TELLERS FOR THE NOES: 




Mr. Denis Howell and Mr. Gurden.

Mr. Hooson: I beg to move, in page 49, line 32, after"recreation", to insert:
but shall give special consideration to local inhabitants using the said facilities or reservoir".
I propose to add these words to Clause 79(3), which at the moment reads as follows:
The Authority may demand and take such reasonable charges as they think fit from any person using any facilities provided under this section or using the reservoir for the purposes of recreation.
As hon. Members who represent Birmingham constituencies will appreciate, Birmingham will draw millions of gallons of water from this reservoir every day.

Mr. Denis Howell: And it will pay for it.

Mr. Hooson: That is just the point. It will not pay for it. The local inhabitants will lose a beautiful valley. They will also lose other things. The valley has running through it a very good little trout stream called the Clywedog, in which many generations of local inhabitants have fished by special arrangement with the farmers owning the land. The local inhabitants will lose this facility.
I happen to come from an area, referred to by the right hon. Member for Llanelly (Mr. J. Griffiths), which is suffering from depopulation and where the wages are very much lower than those earned in the Birmingham area. When a reservoir of this kind is built, thus creating an attraction drawing people to the

area, prices will inevitably be driven up. What are reasonable prices for people coming on trips from the Birmingham area may be very different from what are reasonable prices for local inhabitants.

8.15 p.m.

I am concerned about the rights of people who have lived in the area for generations. The local angling associations at present enjoy fishing facilities on the river. They will lose these. I do not doubt for a moment that the fishing facilities on the reservoirs will be very much poorer. There is a matter of great principle here. It is all very well for great authorities to come and prospect for water in Wales and say,"We need water for the industries in our growing towns", In this case the authorities concerned had the greatest co-operation from the Montgomery County Council and the Montgomeryshire Water Board. This matter has been treated on a more adult level than other proposals of this kind in recent years in Wales. There has been far greater co-operation than in previous Measures of this kind. It is important that the local inhabitants should not be entirely forgotten in a Measure of this type. After all, it is their countryside. They have lived there and they have certain rights in respect of it.

My hon. Friends and I have deliberately drafted the Amendment in not very specific terms, because we agree that the joint authority should have a certain discretion here as to where to draw the line as to who are local inhabitants. The


Amendment charges the authority with the duty to—
give special consideration to local inhabitants using the said facilities or reservor".
For example, in the Elan Reservoir in Radnorshire, which has been run by Birmingham for many years, the local inhabitants are given special facilities and are charged special prices for fishing. This should obtain also in the Clywedog Reservoir in respect of fishing, boating, sailing, and so on.

Mr. Denis Howell: This is perhaps the vaguest and most irresponsible Amendment ever put before the House. I understand what the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Hooson) is seeking to do, but it is very obvious that he has not given this matter mature consideration, because we are asked to accept the proposition that in the recreational facilities provided at this waterworks the local inhabitants should receive special consideration in the matter of charges. The corollary to that is that there must be a definition of what a local inhabitant is. It is obvious that the hon. and learned Gentleman, who understands the law far better than I do, as he has already told the House, should have tabled an Amendment to the interpretation Clause stating beyond doubt what a local inhabitant is. Is it a member of the parish? Is it a member of the county council area? Is it a member of the Montgomery constituency? We do not know what a local inhabitant is. We do not even know how long a local inhabitant has to be local before he is an inhabitant. If I go camping for a fortnight, do I become a local inhabitant for the purposes of trout fishing or any of the other pleasant pastimes under consideration?
The hon. and learned Gentleman also told us that this was a provision carried out in the Claerwen Valley district. I am sorry to have to say to him that it is not so.

Mr. Hooson: I did not say that it was a provision. I said that in fact facilities were provided.

Mr. Howell: My information is that no special facilities are provided for local inhabitants in the Claerwen and Elan Valleys, nor should they be. If this argument were carried further, what

would happen to the economy of the country? Should the local inhabitants of Birmingham, because of their great contribution to industry in the motor trade, be granted special privileges as to the prices they pay for motor cars, as compared with the prices paid by people living in other parts of the country?

Mr. Bowen: This is not a question of special facilities. This is a modicum of compensation for the local inhabitants for something which has been taken from them.

Mr. Howell: Where does that argument end? Every agricultural worker could claim, on that argument, that he should be charged less for the products he provides. In any case, on that argument, who is to be the arbiter?

Mr. Cyril Bence: Mr. Cyril Bence (Dunbartonshire, East) rose—

Mr. Howell: I am tempted to give way to my hon. Friend, but I am inclined not to do so in view of the business which will come before the House when we have dealt with the Amendment. However, since my hon. Friend lived and worked in Birmingham I will allow him to intervene.

Mr. Bence: My hon. Friend referred to workers in the motor industry not enjoying privileges. As he knows, I worked in that industry. I can assure my hon. Friend that for several products, from washing machines and stainless steel sinks to motor cars, I was able to get a reduced price.

Mr. Howell: That may be true of some firms, but it is by no means the universal practice in the industry. Even if my hon. Friend did get such a"perk", I am sure that he would not think of promoting it as a piece of legislation, which is what the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery is trying to do.
Anyone considering this matter in a fair-minded way will agree that the Amendment would be unworkable. The authority which would have to determine its operation would be placed in an intolerable position, and Parliament should not allow that to happen. I hope that the Joint Parliamentary Secretary will shed a little more light on this


subject than he could on the previous Amendment.

Mr. T. W. Jones: Half-a-dozen speeches of the type just delivered by the hon. Member for Birmingham, Small Heath (Mr. Denis Howell) would soon urge me to become a Welsh Nationalist and to say to the people of Birmingham, with them,"Find your water in England and leave us in peace". The hon. Member should have said,"We are grateful to the people of Wales in general, and of Montgomeryshire in particular, for having given us all this assistance to make this reservoir possible".
The people of Birmingham will be spending £4½ million on the construction of this reservoir in Montgomeryshire. I hope that they realise that £4½ million cannot buy one thing—good will. The people of Liverpool appreciated this when they took over the Tryweryn Valley and, eventually, were wise enough to do everything in their power to secure the good will of the inhabitants of the area. Nothing will help more to secure the good will of the inhabitants of the Clywedog Valley than to accept the Amendment, for it is obviously reasonable.

Mr. Denis Howell: The hon. Member is surely not suggesting that his constituents and the people of Wales can have their good will bought by giving them advantages of a financial character. Would that not be totally unworthy?

Mr. Jones: I never suggested that good will could be bought at any price or in any way, certainly not financially. However, it can be secured. Acceptance of the Amendment would show that the people of the area are being considered, along with the construction of the new reservoir. Realising that a subject of considerable importance has yet to be debated, I will do no more than appeal to hon. Members to support the Amendment.

Mr. Bence: It might be helpful if I, as a Welshman who left Wales to work in Birmingham, expressed my point of view. I discovered when I got to Birmingham, being a keen angler—and my

hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Small Heath (Mr. Denis Howell) knows this to be so—that at weekends I was able to go into the Welsh hills and to fish in the Welsh rivers.
I also discovered that many Birmingham angling clubs and associations were in the habit of buying fishing rights for their clubs. I have, therefore, considerable sympathy with those who support the Amendment. Had I remained in a Welsh valley, instead of being able to fish in Wales at the times when I left Birmingham to do so—because, for instance, certain angling clubs owned fishing rights there—I might not have been able to enjoy those fishing facilities. As a Welshman working in Birmingham I could go back to fish in Wales in water that had been bought by a Birmingham club. A Welshman who stayed in Wales might not have been in this fortunate position.
For these reasons I have considerable sympathy with the local inhabitants who have decided to remain and live in Wales. In any case, the argument about what is a local inhabitant is simply explained. A local inhabitant is someone who lives in the area of the reservoir.

Mr. Graham Page: Is such a person an inhabitant of the local?

Mr. Bence: It depends upon which local one is discussiing. I have not been the usual or frequent occupant of the sort of local I think the hon. Member has in mind. A part of my constituency happens to be dry and I want to keep it that way. I believe that the hon. Member is referring to institutions in which is consumed whisky, beer and the like. I am talking about the local inhabitants of the areas in the vicinity of the reservoir; people who have enjoyed certain fishing facilities in the streams that will now become a reservoir.
In permitting Birmingham to convert this valley into a reservoir it is only right that Parliament should ensure that the local inhabitants are not denied the amenities provided by the reservoir—amenities that may be provided for citizens of Birmingham who have left Wales but not for citizens of Wales.

Mr. Ede: Surely the great advantage that Montgomeryshire will get from this reservoir, which we are told


is to cost £4½ million, is a hugely increased rateable value. Radnorshire gets about 60 per cent. of its rates from the Birmingham Corporation because of the Elan Valley reservoir. Montgomeryshire, while I do not think it will get 60 per cent., will get a considerable addition to its rateable value in a county where that is much needed.

Mr. Bowen: Will it really help the rates?

Mr. Ede: I would advise my hon. and learned Friend to consult his hon. Friends who represent Radnorshire about the advantage, from the municipal point of view, of being able to extract so much of their rates from the Corporation of Birmingham on one rate demand note.

Mr. Corfield: I wholeheartedly agree with the hon. Member for Birmingham, Small Heath (Mr. Denis Howell) in saying that hon. Members would not be wise to accept an Amendment of this sort. As the hon. Member for Merioneth (Mr. T. W. Jones) said—if we are to use this as an operation for securing good will—the very essence of the operation by Liverpool in the Tryweryn Valley and of

what has happened in the Elan Valley is that it was done voluntarily and was not written into a Bill.

8.30 p.m.

If we set a precedent here, we may be starting off on a very dangerous path. I cannot for the life of me see how we could operate this provision without a definition of what is a local inhabitant, without defining how long someone has to be resident in the district before qualifying for these benefits, what the district comprises, and so on. I would remind hon. Members that Clause 33(1) makes it clear that the intention is that the compensation shall be based on every form of loss—including, presumably, these fishing rights. Clause 33 is much wider than the general legislation and, as far as I know, the only precedent is in the Liverpool Corporation Act. I think that it would be wrong to write this provision into the Bill, and get into difficulties over precedents in the future.

Question put, That those words be there inserted in the Bill: —

The House divided: Ayes 69, Noes 59.

Division No. 160.]
AYES
[8.31 p.m.


Awbery, Stan (Bristol, Central)
Hale, Leslie (Oldham, W.)
Probert, Arthur


Barnett, Guy
Hamilton, William (West Fife)
Rankin, John


Bence, Cyril
Hannan, William
Rees, Merlyn (Leeds, S.)


Biffen, John
Harper, Joseph
Robertson, John (Paisley)


Bowen, Roderic (Cardigam)
Hayman, F. H.
Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)


Boyden, James
Hill, J. (Midlothian)
Snow, Julian


Brockway, A. Fenner
Hooson, H. E.
Sorensen, R. W.


Cliffe, Michael
Hunter, A. E.
Symonds, J. B.


Cooke, Robert
Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)


Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)
Jones, Elwyn (West Ham, S.)
Thomas, Iorwerth (Rhondda, W.)


Critchley, Julian
Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)
Thompson, Dr. Alan (Dunfermline)


Dalyell, Tam
Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)
Thomson, G. M. (Dundee, E.)


Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)
Kelley, Richard
Thornton, Ernest


Davies, Harold (Leek)
Kenyon, Clifford
Thorpe, Jeremy


Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)
Lever, L. M. (Ardwick)
Wade, Donald


Deer, George
Lipton, Marcus
Warbey, William


Dempsey, James
McKay, John (Wallsend)
Wilkins, W. A.


Dodds, Norman
Markham, Major Sir Frank
Willey, Frederick


Ede, Rt. Hon. C.
Morgan, William
Williams, D. J. (Neath)


Finch, Harold
Moyle, Arthur
Williams, W. R. (Openshaw)


Galpern, Sir Myer
Pargiter, G. A.
Woollam, John


Greenwood, Anthony
Parker, John



Griffiths, W. (Exchange)
Pavitt, Laurence
TELLERS FOR THE AYES: 


Grimond, Rt. Hon. J.
Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd)
Mr. Morris and Mr. Lubbock.


NOES


Barlow, Sir John
Corfield, F. V.
Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)


Baxter, Sir Beverley (Southgate)
Coulson, Michael
Harris, Frederic (Groydon, N.W.)


Bell, Ronald
Crossman, R. H. S.
Harrison, Brian (Maldon)


Bennett, J. (Glasgow, Bridgeton)
Dance, James
Harrison, Col Sir Harwood (Eye)


Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gos &amp; Fhm)
Digby, Simon Wingfield
Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere(Macclesf''d)


Bottomley, Rt. Hon. A. G.
Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. M.
Henderson, John (Cathcart)


Bourne-Arton, A.
Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)
Hiley, Joseph


Brown, Alan (Tottenham)
Emmet, Hon. Mrs. Evelyn
Hocking, Philip N.


Brown, Rt. Hon. George (Belper)
Farr, John
Hollingworth, John


Bullus, Wing Commander Eric
Fraser, Ian (Plymouth, Sutton)
Howell, Charles A. (Perry Barr)


Burden, F. A.
Gammans, Lady
Hughes-Young, Michael


Butcher, Sir Herbert
Glover, Sir Douglas
Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.




King, Dr. Horace
Page, Graham (Crosby)
Thatcher, Mrs. Margaret


Kitson, Timothy
Pitt, Dame Edith
Tomney, Frank


Lagden, Godfrey
Pott, Percivall
Turner, Colin


Lilley, F. J. P.
Powell, Rt. Hon. J. Enoch
Ward, Dame Irene


McAdden, Sir Stephen
Pym, Francis
Williams, Paul (Sunderland, S.)


MacArthur, Ian
Seymour, Leslie



MacColl, James
Steward, Harold (Stockport, S.)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES: 


Marshall, Sir Douglas
Taylor, Edwin (Bolton, E.)
Mr. Denis Howell and Mr. Gurden.


Matthews, Gordon (Meriden)
Taylor, Frank (M'ch'st'r, Moss Side)

Bill to be read the Third time.

SUPPLY

Again considered in Committee.

[Mr. Charles Royle in the Chair]

Question again proposed,

That a further sum, not exceeding £25, be granted"to Her Majesty, towards defraying the charges for the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1964, for the services connected with Housing and Urban Land Prices.

HOUSING AND URBAN LAND PRICES

8.41 p.m.

Mr. T. Brown: It has been said, and it is perfectly true and manifest today, that to be a Member of this House one must have the patience of Job and the wisdom of Solomon. We went in the course of debate from the ugliness of the mining villages in my constituency to the beautiful hills and valleys of Wales. I was saying before we were interrupted that land wastage in the town of Ince-in-Makerfield added up to 881 acres, or 40 per cent. of the total acreage of the town. I was appealing to the Minister then, and I reaffirm it now, that he should give some consideration to industrial towns where mines have ceased to operate and the local authorities are left with a legacy of the upheaval caused by industrial evolution—not revolution.
I have the good fortune or misfortune to represent a constituency in which five out of the seven urban authorities are affected by the result of mining operations. In the township of Ashton-in-Makerfield, 260 acres are covered by spoilage, 130 acres have been damaged by mining subsidence, and there are 180 acres of derelict land caused by other factors. All told, there are 570 acres which the township wants to reclaim for house building purposes, but it has not the wherewithal to do it.

I had expected that the Parliamentary Secretary would have made some reference to something being done for urban authorities which were so unfortunately placed. During the five years, 1963–1968, the local council wishes to reclaim this land, but it wants some help which can come only from the Treasury. Not very long ago when we were appealing to the present Chancellor of the Exchequer to make the district into a development area the right hon. Gentleman said that it was up to the local authorities to initiate matters. Here is an example of what is being initiated by these local authorities in the reclamation of derelict land. They cannot do it as long as the rateable value remains what it is. I appeal to the Minister to consider this matter and to give financial help to those local authorities which are anxious to reclaim land now lying dormant.

In the third township of Hindley pit heaps 120 ft. high rear their ugly heads, destroying the souls of the people who live in the neighbourhood. I want the Minister to understand the position of these people in the mining areas. They have behind them pit heaps and in front of them large mounds of earth thrown up by opencast mining. That has been going on since 1941. Local authorities in industrial and mining areas are not getting a fair deal from the Minister or from the Treasury, and I want the right hon. Gentleman to do something in that direction. It might be said,"What about the rateable value? Cannot they increase it?" How can they increase the rateable value when they cannot build the houses?

Take another district, Abram, with a small district council and a population of just over 6,000. The rateable value is £20,231. In Ashton-in-Makerfield the population is 19,440 and the rateable value is £72,551. All the districts that I have mentioned, Abram, Ashton-in-Makerfield, Ince-in-Makerfield and Hindley, have not the rateable value upon which they can raise the money to effect reclamation. I am complaining


about the lax method of the Department in dealing with plans submitted to them. I repeal: what I have said before, that the Makerfield town map was submitted to the Department in 1960, and now, two and a half years after, that town map has not been finalised to enable the local authority to proceed with the work of reclaiming the land.

Not long ago a well-known photographer, in order to make some money, came into the district and I have here a photograph of six flashes and slag heaps. No doubt, the photographer made some money out of it. He gave it the title"Wigan by the Sea". Of course, we all know the joke about Wigan pier. Actually, it is no joke for there is a pier there, but there is no sea. There is, however, a tremendous amount of water caused by mining subsidence occupying acres of land which ought to be reclaimed by the Government, no matter which party is in power.

I have said before, and I repeat with great emphasis, that sooner or later this country will have to face with determination and seriousness the reclamation of derelict land. The Department has issued a pamphlet entitled Life from Dead Land. Here is an opportunity for the Department to help the county councils and local authorities to put that policy into effect. I plead with the right hon. Gentleman to assist these local authorities, which are facing these difficulties which are great but are not insurmountable. They can be overcome, given the will and determination to go forward in the direction which the right hon. Gentleman indicates in the pamphlet.

About a fortnight ago an important deputation met the Prime Minister. Incidentally, Mr. Royle, it was led by your brother, who is town clerk of Wigan. It is reported that in the interview which took place he spoke of the old Lancashire saying,"Where there's muck, there's money". The money has gone, but the muck is still there.

I beg the Minister once more to give better consideration to these unfortunate local authorities which, although the pits have gone, are left with the muck, the debris, the ugliness and sordidness of heaps, flashes and marsh land. The whole situation should be tackled at

once. Let him go forward, with the assistance of the local authorities and the county councils, to make a determined effort to rid the north-west and the south-west of Lancashire of the ugliness and sordidness for which the people there now are not responsible.

One further word. I remind the Minister that he is going out into Skelmersdale in Lancashire and establishing a new town. It is proposed to take 33 farms, but nothing is being put back in the form of reclaimed land. Yet it could be the salvation of the district if land could be reclaimed equal to the acreage which is being taken for the new town. Two fine objects would be achieved. The place would be made more beautiful, and the amenities would be enormously improved by the restoration of the land. I do not suggest that it should be restored to its original condition because, of course, that cannot be done, but it should be restored to something like what it was before industry came in. I beg the Minister to help these local authorities to reclaim this land which is urgently needed for housing purposes.

8.52 p.m.

Mr. Harold Steward: The hon. Member for Ince (Mr. T. Brown), in resuming his speech, said something to the effect that, in the House of Commons, we require the wisdom of a Solomon. I think that some of us at this time would be inclined to add that we need also the patience of a Job. We sit here wondering whether it is possible to get in at all. I realise that other hon. Members wish to speak and that we have promised to allow the winding-up speeches to begin at twenty past nine, so I shall concentrate on two points.
Inevitably, in discussing land values at this time, our debate takes place against the background of my right hon. Friend's White Paper. I very much welcome the White Paper. It has been described today as a document which merely brings together ideas which have been percolating through the House for a long time, but a truer description would be that it is a progress report covering the past 13 years and a forward look into the future by my right hon. Friend with the initiative and


resourcefulness which lie has demonstrated ever since he came to the Ministry.
It has been rightly said that the bigger housing programme of the future depends upon the availability of land. This is the crux of the whole problem. It is true, also, that there is land available around many of our cities and towns which have not the pressing housing problems of the conurbations referred to in the White Paper, and that in such places land prices have not, perhaps, soared to the extent that they have in the London area and the larger conurbations. But, where the pressure is greatest, where the need for housing is greatest, where the shortage of land is greatest and where the greatest rise in the cost of land is taking place, the fact of the matter is that in certain local authority areas there is no land available at all and one has to go farther and farther a field. Although we try to take a national view of the situation, it is inevitable that individually we bring to bear in these debates those matters which are nearest to our minds, and the districts and parts of the country with which we are most familiar.
In this debate, I am concerned with Mersey side and south-east Lancashire, two of the specific areas mentioned in the White Paper—two of the areas in which all these pressures have come together. My right hon. Friend says in his White Paper in reference to land shortage that he has done two things. In the first place, he has taken a five-year view, as it were, with regard to building and a ten-year view with regard to planning, and in addition he is instructing various regional officers to take a view which will take us to about 1980. He says that regional studies are being made by two planning departments.
I suggest that where we are concerned in relation to the shortage of land and the rising price of land, we are concerned because the amount of land which is made available to us, piece by piece, is only just sufficient for the immediate programme ahead, and that while that obtains the price of land must inevitably continue to rise. If we are to take this longer view, if the two planning departments operating in a regional sense are

to take a view of the land which will be positively required for housing purposes under any of the three-pronged attack which the Minister suggests, it should be possible to produce an exact date with regard to that land, and then my right hon. Friend will be in a position to create a land surplus rather than a land shortage. If he can do that, these rising prices will surely fall. If he will declare, as soon as these regional surveys have been completed in a positive way, that this is the land which will be available between now and 1980,and make it available at once, he will immediately change from a position of absolute shortage and scarcity in these areas to one of surplus in which prices are bound to fall. It may be that I have not merely over-simplified this problem but possibly ignored some fact which would destroy what I suggest, but at least it appears a tenable proposition at first sight.
The second point that I want to make is that my right hon. Friend is making provision for all needs, which we welcome very much. He speaks in terms of the three-pronged attack—home ownership of the future, extension of the 6·2 million homes occupied as a result very largely of the work of the last 12 years, and in terms of local authority building for those who cannot meet the full cost of housing; that is the slums and the redevelopment of the decaying areas. He speaks, thirdly, of something which has been in being for some time but to which he is giving by this White Paper an added impetus, new housing to let and co-ownership largely by means of these housing associations.
If we take the first and read the White Paper, every word that it contains is perfectly true if looked at in a national context. It is not true in a pattern equally diffused over the whole country. It is significant that in the very places where the greatest housing shortage still occurs the number of homes built for home ownership are fewer than those in other parts of the country. I believe that it is true that at this moment homes built privately in this way have been almost two-thirds of the total, but in one authority, of which some of us have some knowledge, out of a total of 46,000 built since 1945 only 7,000 have been built privately in this way.
It is easy to understand the reason for this. It is because of the grievous local


authority housing shortage and the grave shortage of land so that the local authority, with its powers, naturally and understandably exercises those powers to get on with its own programme which results in some distortion of the pattern for the country as a whole.
On local authority building, I wish that we could get back to the very fair description in the White Paper of the idea of local authorities
building for those who cannot meet the full cost of housing
—that is, the clearance of the slums and the redevelopment of the decayed areas. This was the position when local authority building first commenced. This was why local authorities were first empowered to build houses. In the course of time, and for reasons which appeared to be good at the time, the pattern changed from one of housing need in the sense of financial need to the housing shortage of an entirely different character following the last war. Many homes, particularly in the last 18 years, have been occupied by people to whom one could not under any circumstances apply the description of people
who cannot meet the full cost of housing".
Again, that is understandable, but if the Minister is suggesting in the White Paper that we should get back to this, and is bringing in the third prong of his attack to make housing for rent available by other means as a supplement to the local authority shortage, that is something which I can well understand. It would be extremely useful if my right hon. Friend could give us some positive indication in this connection.
My right hon. Friend speaks in the White Paper of the Housing Corporation being given special powers. One paragraph states that it may be thought right to give the corporation a reserve power to buy land compulsorily, subject to adequate safeguards. If that recommendation were carried out, the Housing Corporation would be in exactly the same position as the local authority, with both going for land in exactly the same place where there is a grave housing shortage. How will these two bodies rank against each other? Will there be co-operation? Will there be direction? Exactly what will happen? I dare say it is a little early for my right hon. Friend to be asked these questions, but if he could

help us on this point I should be very grateful.
I welcome these housing associations. Perhaps I should declare an interest in that I have become a member of one of them. We have not been able to do a great deal up to now because of the shortage of land. If these housing associations are to flourish and go forward as the Minister suggests, we must be very careful about their formation. Because of the basic goodness of the idea, it would be so easy for them not to contain people who know the local authority working, who know exactly what they will come up against and who will be frustrated in the end to the extent that they will give up what they regard as a hopeless position. This has happened in some cases. I hope, therefore, that these associations will be formed very carefully and that they will be given the necessary power to carry out the third prong of the attack as indicated by the Minister.

9.14 p.m.

Mr. Laurence Pavitt: I hope that the hon. Member for Stockport, South (Mr. H. Steward) will forgive me if I do not follow him too closely. Since half-past three, I have been prepared to give devastating replies to the hon. Members for Holland with Boston (Sir H. Butcher) and Sunderland, South (Mr. P. Williams) and every other hon. Members opposite, and now, equally, I should like to answer some of the points made by the hon. Member for Stockport, South. Time is short, however, and I will try to concentrate on the problem mainly from a constituency viewpoint.
I agree with the hon. Member for Stockport, South about the importance of the third prong, and I welcome that part of the Joint Parliamentary Secretary's contribution to the debate. The Minister knows that in my constituency we have pioneered the co-operative housing association as one of the means of dealing with out problem. I am surprised, however, that in the White Paper the Minister comes forward, as he has done, with support for the housing association, increasing the original £25 million, but failing still to call into collaboration and consultation the co-operative movement with its 11 million members. As the right hon. Gentleman knows, in Sweden this movement has


played an important part in the development of participation by tenants in co-operative housing associations and the British movement has over a hundred years experience of co-operative organisation.
I should like to come down from the national view to the pressing problems which, like my hon. Friend the Member for Paddington (Mr. Parkin), I must approach from the viewpoint of my constituents. In the White Paper, the Minister fails completely to get to grips with the kind of problems that we seek to tackle in the community. Listening to hon. Members opposite, I sometimes wonder whether we live in the same world or even whether the Minister lives in the same world as some of his back benchers, who are obviously also seized of the importance of some of these problems.
The Minister talks of 60,000 slums to be cleared in ten years. The telling part of the White Paper, however, is that his plan will tackle most of the areas"except those with the largest concentrations," which are precisely where the slums exist. Sixty thousand will be a useful contribution, but the estimate which has been made in many quarters in the past few months is nearer to a figure of l¼ million and the position is not static.
The Minister hopes in ten years to make an inroad into the problem, but at the rate at which we are progressing in my constituency, with the number of people on the housing list—which has been revised during the past 12 months to eliminate those who are no longer still in need of housing—it will be not a ten-year programme but a 250-year programme.
In Willesden, we have 4,045 people on the housing list, plus 2,274 on the list for nomination to new towns. Last year, under our points scheme, we were able to rehouse only sixteen families. The Minister knows that this points scheme is a fair method of allocation. Points are awarded for such things as overcrowding, health reasons, residential qualifications and so on. In spite of the fact that we made 357 new houses available to people in my constituency during the twelve months, only 16 from the housing list were satisfied. The reason is that we have a large

slum area. We were able to rehouse 267 from the slum clearance scheme, but these people have to be rehoused only at the cost of delaying those who are on the housing list. We also rehoused 74 hardship cases, most of whom had been evicted because of the Rent Act. In my constituency, the local ratepayers have had to find something like £156,000 to buy old property, sometimes dilapidated, and put it into a decent state of repair to cater for people evicted because of the Rent Act. Thus, our 4,045 people on the wating list are being rehoused at the rate of 16 a year.
In these circumstances, some of the complacency shown by the Minister about the housing problem does not strike a chord with me when on a Friday evening, in my waiting room outside my" surgery", man after man and family after family approach me because of their intense housing problems. I should like to draw the Minister's attention to the kind of eviction cases which have to be dealt with. One is a widow aged 84, with a married son and his wife and their son aged four and daughter aged nine. After 24 years at the same address, the family has been evicted. Case number 1247 is of a spinster aged 59, who has been evicted after 17 years at the same address. I could give details of case after case which needs to be rehoused.
In an intervention to my hon. Friend the Member for Paddington, North, the Minister raised the question of multi-occupation tenancies. I do not quite know what one does in the circumstances of case number 25877 in our housing department's files. On the ground floor in one room there are father and mother who is expecting a child in three or four weeks' time, a son aged 5, a daughter aged 4 years 6 months, another child aged 2; in another room on the ground floor another lady; another gentleman in a back room; seven people upstairs in one room and the two other rooms with one occupant each. It is the sort of cottage which would have sold for £250 before the war. Hon. Members know the sort of thing—two rooms on the ground floor and an extension room, the same upstairs, and a lavatory in the back garden.
The people living there will have to be rehoused, because of statutory over crowding but how can we possibly do


it in the circumstances we have in Willesden, in spite of the Housing Association and in spite of the three-pronged attempts?
What we should like to know is, just what is the Minister going to do to prevent evictions? And what does he regard as an exorbitant rent? I had a very courteous letter from the Joint Parliamentary Secretary about a case I referred to him only last week. The tenant concerned is on National Assistance. The rent has gone up to £6 10s. The Joint Parliamentary Secretary pointed out to me that that is six and a half times the gross value at 1956 and, as he also pointed out, the house is over 50 years old. It is in a bad state of repair and not worth any more rent than about £3 10s., which is what the National Assistance Board is prepared to pay. What does my constituent do when National Assistance cannot pay the £6 10s. rent which is demanded and which is six and a half times the gross value in 1956? Yet, obviously, if the tenant is evicted because she cannot pay the rent she goes on to the housing list and once again delays others on the points scheme. I do hope that the Minister will sometime or another just tell us what he thinks is an exorbitant rent for such property in terms of the 1956 gross value because this an acute problem in many areas other than Willesden.
I should like the Minister also to look again at land prices. He will recall that in a previous debate I told him of a portion of land being sold at £112,000 an acre. He may be interested to know that Middlesex County Council has now bought that piece of land. In 1953 during a housing scheme in my constituency land was purchased at £8,079 an acre. Last year a similar area of land in a comparable neighbourhood was at £54,318 per acre. How does one tackle the housing of 4,045 on the list when one has to pay that type of price for land? It is no good the Minister saying that we hope that somehow or another we shall solve the problem, because even with the greater densities, and despite the help the Minister has offered for grant for expensive sites, with land at prices like that we simply cannot cope.
We have already done a lot in Willesden and we are proud of our record. We spent last year something like £1¼ mil-

lion of the ratepayers' money on rehousing, repairs, buying land, and housing schemes which include slum and prefab clearance. We accept these responsibilities, but we are getting absolutely no help from the Minister. We have had to buy 11 sites by means of compulsory purchase orders, but the right hon. Gentleman turned down two others we sought and let the sites go for private development. Willesden is close to London. This makes the building of luxury flats the tenants of which commute to the City a profitable business, but that makes it impossible for those on the housing list to be rehoused by the local housing authority.
So, in spite of the fact that we have pioneered a housing association, in spite of the fact that we have done a great deal to encourage owner-occupation and have given 880 mortgages—although we had to stop that for a period because there was not the money available—we are in an impossible situation. We shall be unless the Government helps us to meet it.
When the Joint Parliamentary Secretary and other Gentlemen opposite talk about encouragement of the owner-occupiers, I wonder whether they realise some of the problems which face young couples who do not have enough money to pay heavy mortgages and to meet that big difference between the valuation of the house and the amount which the mortgage society or local authority is prepared to advance. As a result a large deposit has to be found. The young couple are prepared to find it, because both go to work, but then they have a family and the woman can no longer go to work. The family gets into financial difficulties and, as a consequence, a number of human problems arise.
My time is short, but I should have liked very much to have talked a good deal about a number of other important housing matters which affect not only my constituency, but those of many hon. Gentlemen opposite, and certainly constituencies like that of the hon. Member for Stockport, South where there are crowded industrial areas magnets attracting workers without special housing accommodation for them. What we are asking for is less promises and more action, and in this White Paper I can see nothing which will give any


hope or comfort to my constituents in the foreseeable future.
It will take 250 years to rehouse those on the housing lists with interest rates as they are, with the possibility of trying to find land where no land exists, and where it does exist, having to pay up to £112,000 per acre for it. The task is so formidable—a word used several times by the Parliamentary Secretary this afternoon—that I cannot see how it can be tackled until this Government departs and we get a Government who are more understanding of the real human and social problems and have less of the statistical doctrinaire approach of the right hon. Gentleman.

9.18 p.m.

Mr. Graham Page: I have about three minutes in which to make my speech. The hon. Member for Willesden, West (Mr. Pavitt) has stressed what always happens in these housing debates. Each side of the House says that not enough houses are being built. We shall go on saying that if both Front Benches believe in this misleading statement about there being the same number of homes as there are houses at the moment. This statement is repeated again in the White Paper, that there are the same number of households as there are houses.
Any hon. Member who keeps in touch with his constituency by what the hon. Member for Willesden, West calls his"surgery" knows that that statement is unbelievable. If one looks at the census from which this was taken, one sees the fallacy of it. This is according to the 1961 census where it is said that there are the same number of households as there are houses, and it is based on this definition of a private household as a household which
comprises one person living alone or a group of persons living together, partaking of meals prepared together and benefiting from a common housekeeping.
It does not take into account the young marrieds living at home and waiting for a home of their own before they have children. It does not take into account those who have delayed marriage and are living at home until they can get a house. It does not take into account the elderly people who want homes of their own. It does not take any of these factors into

account, and as a result a figure of 350,000 houses a year, which was the figure given by my right hon. Friend—and he is encouraged in this by the Front Bench opposite—is inadequate to solve the problem.
The hon. Member for Fulham (Mr. M. Stewart) would not come out with a target today. He talked vaguely about 350,000 houses a year being the correct figure. It is nowhere near the correct figure. In the period 1951 to 1961 the demand for households increased by 1 million. Over the next ten years it will be much greater than that; it will bean increase of 2 million.
If we consider the number of obsolete houses, and give a house a life of 100 years, it means that 3 million houses should be torn down and rebuilt in the next ten years. One needs only to look at figures like this to get the proper target figure of ½ million houses a year, and that is the number we need. If we continue with a target of 350,000 a year, our people will continue to suffer the tragedies about which we hear so much. I want a target of ½ million houses a year, and not one of 350,000.

9.20 p.m.

Mr. George Brown: I am glad to have been able to give the hon. Member for Crosby (Mr. Graham Page) a chance to make his point, but it was unfair of him to accuse my hon. Friend the Member for Fulham (Mr. M. Stewart) of having encouraged the hon. Member's right hon. Friend in his sins.
In a way, this has been an unsatisfactory debate, although the Minister and I have tried to make up for it by getting up a good deal later than would otherwise have been the case. We have been affected by other business, and that has been a bit of a misery. Listening to the Parliamentary Secretary's lecture to us this afternoon, I was not very clear whether he realised that there was a problem. The Minister had better make it clear now. Does he accept that after 12 years of government for which his party has been responsible, there is still a considerable problem?
I often get the impression that the atmosphere in the House of Commons and that in the country are totally different. Ministers make speeches here and we may make speeches here, but all the time we are thinking of the atmo-


sphere in the House and of the critics in the Galleries and we are acting as though we are actors putting on a show. [Hon. Members:"No."] I speak for all of us. Sometimes we impress each other and sometimes we impress the critics, but the people outside are not impressed. The Deptford by-election has made that absolutely plain. There the issue was housing. The electors of Deptford held not only the Government but the House of Commons to be responsible. In a cynical kind of way, they thought that none of us had any interest.
Listening to the debate today, I have understood that. From the beginning until now—I hope that it will now change—points have been made which may look very good in tomorrow's HANSARD but which have nothing to do with the problems of people living in miserable streets and in even more miserable—I was about to say"houses", but that is not the right term;"units" is the right term. They have none of the amenities.
In this London of ours there are 400,000 people, men, women and children, who are homeless. This can be reproduced in every other big city.

Sir K. Joseph: Sir K. Joseph rose—

Mr. Brown: I cannot give way. The Minister can make the point in his own speech. He pressed me very hard to sit down a couple of minutes earlier than I had intended and he cannot have it both ways.

Sir K. Joseph: It is 4,000.

Mr. Brown: Was that the only point? [Laughter.] I do not think that anybody would think that that was—[Laughter.] If hon. Members opposite are to take that view, any agreement I made with the Minister goes by the board. I meant to say 4,000. If anybody thinks that it is worth making the point, O.K., it is now made. There are 4,000 men, women and children in London who are now homeless.

Mr. Temple: How many in New York?

Mr. Brown: Let the 4,000 know—even more, let the constituents know—that that is the amount of interest in the housing problems of this country which the hon. Member has. That is the first half of the problem and it has increased in the last two years.
The second half of the problem is that 600,000 slums are still being lived in, despite the announcement of the right hon. Gentleman's predecessor some years ago that by now almost all the slums would have gone. There are 2,500,000 old houses recognised as being beyond repair or improvement at reasonable cost. Altogether, there are nearly 4 million houses without baths and mostly without hot water and without lavatories.
That is the problem. I ask right hon. Gentlemen and hon. Gentlemen opposite to stop scoring silly little points and to think of what it means to be living in houses or flats which have none of these amenities. The Opposition have had no responsibility for 12 years. We are building well below the need each year. People are overcrowding more, the older houses are becoming older and the whole problem is worsening. When the Parliamentary Secretary has scored his little point and the Minister has scored his, as he did in May, after 12 years of Tory Government and heaven knows how many Ministers of Housing and Local Government, from the Prime Minister onwards, this is the problem we are left with.
Of course, said the Parliamentary Secretary, the Government are building more in the beginning of the 'sixties than we were building at the end of the 'forties. I give him his silly little point. There were a lot of other things to be done when the war ended. It would have been absolute disaster if this Government were not building more houses 15 years after the war ended than we were building when the war ended. That is the silliest, stupid point to be making now. It was all right to make a year or two after they came to power, but not now. The fact is that a decade or more after the war ended they are failing to meet the challenge with which they are faced. The present Prime Minister, the present Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations, the new chairman of I.T.A. and the present Home Secretary all guaranteed that within no time at all they would have solved this problem, but we are still being given another 10-year programme, even now.
Within the overall problem are they meeting the need? The Minister has to face this fact. Most of the houses


which are being built, inadequate as they are in total, are being built for purchase at prices which are well outside the range of a very large sector of our people. I do not say that providing houses for those who can afford to pay for them is wrong—it is right. All families need houses, whether they are richer or poorer, but look at the borough in which I live and see for whom houses are being provided.
For the most part the only houses being provided in the Borough of Camber well are for those who can service mortgages on houses of £6,000 and upwards. I live in a borough with a tremendous housing need, but houses are not being provided for people who cannot pay such prices. It is the same in the borough in which I live in London and in the constituency I represent, Belper. The only houses provided, apart from special cases, are for people who can afford to service the mortgages on houses which, in the latter case, cost more than £4,000. Houses are not being provided for the general need of people who cannot meet that price.
Why the failure? The Committee and hon. Members opposite ought to face this. In the first place we are not providing a sufficient proportion of our gross national product for houses. It is a straightforward inefficient allocation of our resources. The last figure I got was 3 per cent. for houses. The Parliamentary Secretary asks from where we would take it. It is the business of the Government to decide the priorities. The sad business is that under this Government housing has been given a very low priority. [Hon. Members:"Oh."] I do not know how much lower hon. Members opposite think we could go than tenth out of 13 countries in Western Europe. How much lower can we go? We are simply not providing enough.
We may be asked how we can increase the resources allocated to housing. It must be borne in mind that we cannot plan positively unless we also plan negatively. We must restrict people. What the Government have never understood is that planning involves both positive choice and negative restriction. Over many years there has been building in the big cities which we could have held back had we decided that housing,

schools and hospitals were our first priority. It could have been done. It was not done—and this is the consequence.
The second reason for the failure is the withdrawal of a systematic and fair allocation of resources within housing. Hon. Members must face it. They have given private enterprise a bit of a free range—more than bit of a free range; and the consequence is that we have not been building houses for people whose need came first.
The third reason is the withdrawal of the annual subsidies for local authorities for general need housing—the Minister must not shake his head at this—and the substitution of a new formula based upon the potential rent resources. This was a straightforward distortion. When they were getting the subsidy based on general need and on the housing requirement in the area, local authorities could do much more than they have been able to do under the new formula.
The fourth reason for the failure has been the cutting back of the local authority housing programmes by Ministerial administrative action. Whenever they were going ahead, they were cut back.
The fifth reason was dear money. In the May debate the Minister said that it was nonsense to talk about dear money being one of the factors which held up housing. He said that it was nonsense to talk about land prices being a factor which held up housing. May I give him the figures for the borough in which I live? I ask the Minister to note these figures because they were given to his Parliamentary Secretary last September, a reply has been awaited ever since, and none has been given. In 1951, when the Labour Government went out of office and a Conservative Government came into office, the interest on the loan debt in the Borough of Camberwell was £65,000. In 1962 the interest on the loan debt in the Borough of Camberwell was £450,000 per annum—and the whole of the difference was housing, arising from the cost of land and the cost of interest on the money which we have to borrow in that borough to try to service what we are attempting to do. This was put to the Parliamentary Secretary in September, but we have had no reply and no help in the matter at all.
Every single house, flat and conversion, every housing operation in the borough in which I live, costs the ratepayers there a loss of £150 a year for 60 years—and they are charging more than the 2⅓times the gross value, the limit which the Minister suggests is right. Why is this? Because of the price of land—and the price of land is due to the action which the Government took—and because of the interest rates which flow from the Government's policy of dear money. These are the fundamentals of the problem. If the Minister believes that the cost of land and the cost of borrowing money for housing programmes are nonsense, then he is totally inadequately equipped for the job which he is trying to do.
The Government forced up prices. They placed a limit on what can be done, even though we spend this amount of money in Camberwell, even though we force this on our ratepayers. The point is that we cannot house people. Apart from that, those providing houses for owner-occupier ship cannot house them, because the rents get out of reach, the mortgages get out of reach, the rates get out of reach, the whole thing puts too much pressure on people. Therefore, we limit the number of houses which can be provided for a given sum of money.
On top of all that, there is the Rent Act. By next year about one-half of the houses that were controlled when the Act came into being will have been decontrolled. We have a thing called creeping decontrol—"creeping"does not seem to be the word—at the rate of 300,000 houses a year. The argument used was that, if we put up with the disadvantages of decontrol, private enterprise would then have a real interest in providing houses and flats to let. The short answer is that it has not. We have got all the disadvantages. We have the increase in rents. We have the pressure on people. We have, as we saw yesterday in the piece about Rachman in the Sunday Times, all the overcrowding. The only thing we have not got is the provision of more flats and more houses for people to rent. This has vastly increased everybody's problems.
Is it not time that the Minister admitted that the action of his colleague, whatever motivated it, has turned out in

retrospect to have been totally wrong? It has vastly increased the problems of local authorities and everybody else. It has increased rents to almost everybody. It has not provided more housing accommodation. It has not brought about any improvement in the standards of houses. Ought we not to face up to this? Is it not absurd to talk, as the Minister does in his White Paper, about the tenants of decontrolled, or easily decontrolled on movement, flats and houses forcing their landlords into making improvements? When I read these things I wonder how out of touch Ministers can possibly be with life as it is lived outside. It is time that they gave up blaming—these are the Minister's words in the last debate—local authorities for having a lack of"housing management drive". They have got that, but they also have problems. They are not able just to toss them aside in the way the Minister does here with an easy speech.
The way out is certainly not, in our view, along the lines of the White Paper, although parts of it, were they supported by an attack on interest rates and on the price of land, would not be all that out. But they must be supported by that. It appears to be the aim of Ministers today to pick holes in our idea for getting at, for breaking the back of, the land crisis. Unless we do this, unless some Government do it, there will be no answer to this problem. This is the thing that will make every Tory Government fail.
Uthwatt onwards through the Silkin Act have all tried this. They have all failed, for one reason or the other. The present Government offer no proposal for this. Indeed, they have argued this afternoon that it is wrong to try. We believe that the proposal we are now making with the Land Commission taking over land at the point of development and being entitled to lease it back for development on flexible terms, which was what the Silkin Act did not provide for, and which will leave something in to encourage development, is probably the best answer. The point is that it is flexible. It allows room for movement. Just to say that this involves nationalisation and principles which Tory Members do not like is not the answer. Unless we deal with land when it becomes available for development and, at that stage, impose conditions and terms for its development,


there is no way by which we can solve this problem.
A number of other things need to be done. We must lower interest rates, reform the subsidies as they are now operated and deal with the effects of the Rent Act. I do not mean that we must just repeal it: we must deal with all that flows from it. We must then help local authorities to deal with houses that are in disrepair and, above all, we must provide money for housing at interest rates which make it possible for the job to be done—and that means selective interest rates.
There is a way in which our housing problem can be tackled. For 12 years hon. and right hon. Members opposite have tried. For 12 years they have failed. The Minister's White Paper is no nearer getting at the problem, because it ducks all the essential issues.

9.41 p.m.

The Minister of Housing and Local Government (Sir Keith Joseph): The House will wish to welcome the hon. Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Duffy) who, in a knowledgeable and engaging speech, recounted the history of his constituency—all except the fact that the right hon. Philip Snowdon was one of his predecessors. I only wish—and in these remarks I speak to the hon. Member for Willesden, West (Mr.Pavitt)—that the co-operatives, of whom the hon. Member for Colne Valley is rightly proud, had turned their attention to housing, so that we had a Swedish experience behind us.
The right hon. Member for Belper (Mr. G. Brown) made a speech cataloguing the main housing ills of the country. It is easy to make that sort of speech, but not quite so easy to find the solutions. To every point of complaint that has legitimately been made by hon. Members on both sides today about these remaining ills there is one simple answer; we need many more houses. We need many more largely because the population has been rising at a rate faster than the building programme that has been undertaken. Had the population not risen so fast more would have been achieved.
We will only manage to get the extra houses by raising the productivity of the building industry and by decentralising

homes and work from the big cities, where land is running out. I do not know which is worse, to have to live in a slum or in over-crowded squalid conditions. Most people are today living in less over-crowded conditions than they were five or ten years ago. However, while housing conditions generally have improved, in the big cities there is a serious over-crowding problem.
I do not believe, and hon. Members must recognise the reality of this, that rent control is any way the answer. It would lead inevitably to much more selling of houses and flats when they become vacant and this would reduce the amount of accommodation available to let. We must build more houses and this can only be done by increased productivity, by decentralisation, and by increases of land. My hon. Friend the Member for Stockport, South (Mr. H. Steward) and the hon. Member for Willesden, West made this plain.
The hon. Member for Paddington, North (Mr. Parkin), in an extremely strong speech, spoke of the exploitation of houses in some of the big cities. This is the sort of exploitation that led to the multi-occupation which, when seen by my right hon. Friend the present Home Secretary, led him, by the outrage he felt, to bring about the passing of the 1961 Act, Part II of which sought to deal with multi-occupation. That part of the Act was designed to deal with Rachman and his ilk.
The problem is to pin the responsibility for these bad conditions—for"sweating" houses; taking in people beyond sanitary or decent human standards—on to the individual responsible when he, for bad reasons, seeks to avoid responsibility.
The 1961 Act has been in force only a year. I have encouraging reports on its effect from Nottingham and from Kensington. I was most impressed by the vigour and sturdiness with which the local authority in Birmingham is using this power. It is true that the local authority of Paddington is only beginning to try to use this power, and has not yet made full use of it. I have asked all local authorities to report to me next year in what ways they think the power needs strengthening, and I shall wait eagerly for any recommendations from local authorities, even in advance of that time,


to see what strengthening needs to be done.
Even so, the only answer is more houses and more land. It is true that prices of land in, near and for the big cities have risen sharply, although I am glad to hear from this debate that most hon. Members recognise that prices in much of the rest of the country have not risen much beyond, if they have risen at all, the changed value of money and the quintuple rise in the level of earnings. But, where land prices have risen seriously, they reflect a combination of prosperity, the desire for homes, the benefit of planning and the remaining shortage of houses. Above all, they reflect the shortage, the inherent, the absolute shortage of land in and near the big cities.
The only way to stabilise prices of land and houses is to acquire more land and build more houses. That, of course, is one of the main reasons why we are raising the house-building programme to a figure of at least 350,000 houses a year. It has been generally recognised that this is a realistic next step and, obviously, when we achieve it we shall seek to go faster still. But, to achieve it, we shall have to help the building industry to continue to raise its productivity.
The building industry is already fully stretched on a massive simultaneous investment programme in every field of social, public and industrial service, and there is a grave shortage of craftsmen, which is the main limitation on the pace of house building.
We are helping by dimensional co-ordination. My right hon. Friend the Minister of Public Building and Works is issuing advice on the use of standard dimensions. We are encouraging local authorities to go in for longer programmes, and we are encouraging industrialisation, which is beginning to make a small contribution. My hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. P. Williams) spoke of the need for large orders, of the sort I am glad to say Liverpool and the L.C.C. have already given to demonstrate the value that industrialised building can bring to the country.
But more houses mean more decentralisation of population, and that is why the regional plans which the Government are now preparing, and which will

provide for a second generation of new and expanded towns, is so vitally important. Here, we shall remember what has been said by my hon. Friend the Member for the City of Chester (Mr. Temple) about the size of new towns.
The pace of house building is not limited by finance or cost. All over the country there are vacancies for craftsmen far in excess of the number of craftsmen available. All parts of the housing programme, public and private, are rising quite sharply, and but for the bad winter we have just had we should have had a record year for housing completions. As it is, the April figure reached a record post-war level for housing starts, public and private, and there are more houses, in both the public and the private sectors, now under construction than at any other time since the war.
Prices, of course, are vital, and local authorities have every right to know that their financial needs will be constantly reviewed so that they can discharge their housing responsibilities. Such a review has just started. It will cover the cost of land, for which there is already an expensive-site subsidy, with the object of enabling local authorities to plan ahead with confidence.
Private enterprise building for owner occupation is rising sharply at the moment. From record levels, we have had such a huge increase of owner occupation as is most impressive—from 29 per cent. of the total of houses built when we came to power to 44 per cent. now. It is true that people often strained their resources in order to buy houses, and that is just why the Government are proposing to start a third arm of housing, which may start quite small at 15,000 houses a year but which, by co-ownership and like means, will bring new housing within the reach of people who, until now, could only by great effort get a house of their own. It may start small but it may grow to great heights and stand on its own feet and make a very large contribution before long.
House prices will be stabilised for local authorities and for private enterprise only by increased productivity and closing the remaining gap between supply and demand. It is no good looking


for those easy panaceas which are the Opposition's favourite weapons. Today we had a clamour again for special rates of interest. This would be the most utterly indiscriminate way of helping housing that could be imagined. It would help wealthy authorities and poor authorities alike, and wealthy men and poor men alike, and it would not produce a single extra house.
The hon. Member for Fulham (Mr. M. Stewart) said that a lower rate of interest would enable local authorities to build more houses, but it would not. The limitations are craftsmen and productivity. It would simply enable more people than now to compete for the apparently bargain houses and up would go the price fast. It would put extra profits in the pockets of the builders without adding a single extra house.
As for the Land Commission idea of hon. Members opposite, which Socialist Commentary itself described as extraordinarily vague, we have learned a little more about it today and we shall need to study in detail what the hon. Member for Fulham said. One thing is clear. The proposal is to buy development land at less than the value which the market will pay for the use to be allowed. This will mean virtually that no land will come forward voluntarily. There will be no willing land sales. All or nearly all will have to be bought by compulsory purchase order. Views on that may vary from one side of the Committee to the other but surely we are all agreed that this will slow down things desperately. There is bound to be great delay in wresting land from its owners by means of compulsory purchase orders.
The hon. Member for Fulham rides off this little difficulty by saying that, once acquired, the land can be passed on sometimes at full value—no benefit of cheaper land there—and sometimes for less. In those cases where the land is passed on at less than full value the queue to get the bargain, which would then be sold at a profit, would be endless. There would have to be a rationing scheme and an allocation system.
All this would have to be done in order to get some of the price of the land for the taxpayer, but it is not necessary to do this to cheapen land for the

local authorities. There is already an"expensive site" subsidy which may well have to be reviewed on the evidence which local authorities will give us. It have been running for several years and is doubling in expenditure at the moment, and exists purely to cheapen land for local authorities so that those who cannot afford market prices can get housing more cheaply.
The hon. Member for Fulham was clearly not proposing to pass on all or any of the cheapness obtained by way of Land Commission purchase to the householder. No one necessarily has to like all the financial implications of our present planning policy. But to limit the profit individual land owners may make and take some of the money for the taxpayer does not seem sensible if it would risk slowing down the only solution we have to the housing problem, that is, the building of more houses.
From every side, from the hon. Lady the Member for Liverpool, Exchange (Mrs. Braddock), from Birmingham and from London, we hear that local authorities are sitting on land which could be being developed. This may or may not be true, but at least there is plenty of land not now held by local authorities. Our system at least brings land to the market. Would we have as much land being developed if all the land people most want had to be wrung unwillingly from its owners at confiscatory prices by compulsory purchase order and then kept pouched by a great bureaucratic machine? The Land Commission idea is full of obscurities but one thing is plain—one of the casualties of the scheme would be owner-occupation as we know it today. I grant that some holders of small plots would be allowed to develop land as now. The rest would either get leaseholds, which hon. Membesr opposite are always indicting as a criminal method of tenure—a householder would never finish paying for his house—or they would get a house which the occupier would not be able to sell except with the Land Commission's approval and at their price.
No one under a Socialist Government, for houses which have not yet been built, would ever be able to call his home his own. This vast bureaucratic machine—confiscation plus rationing


plus controls—is no longer put forward confidently to cheapen prices. There was very little argument about it cheapening prices, and it would not build a single extra house. It would not tackle the real problem—the remaining shortage due to a rapidly rising population.
That is the problem the Government are tackling on every front. We are tackling it by regional plans for new and expanded towns. We are tackling it by subsidy review. We are tackling it by encouraging increased productivity and by industrialised building. We believe there is a choice in housing policy—on the one hand a free market, more land, good credit arrangements, adequate subsidy, more houses, but at prices and rents reflecting current earnings and current willingness and ability to pay

for better accommodation; or, on the other hand, an attempt to distort the market, to hold prices at bargain levels, slowing down the natural incentives at each stage and leading to controls, distortions, more controls, no more owner-occupation, fewer houses and no cheaper prices. That would be the result of the Socialist panacea.

While the Opposition dream about bringing prices down, the Government are getting on with putting the housing programme up.

Mr. M. Stewart: I beg to move,
That Item Class VI, Vote 1 (Ministry of Housing and Local Government), be reduced by £5.

Question put: —

The. Committee divided: Ayes 198, Noes 260.

Division No. 161.]
AYES
[9.58 p.m.


Abse, Leo
Duffy, A. E. P.
Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.


Ainsley, William
Ede, Rt. Hon. C.
King, Dr. Horace


Albu, Austen
Edelman, Maurice
Lawson, George


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Edwards, Rt. Hon. Ness (Caerphilly)
Ledger, Ron


Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)
Edwards, Robert (Bilston)
Lee, Frederick (Newton)


Awbery, Stan (Bristol, Central)
Edwards, Walter (Stepney)
Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock)


Bacon, Miss Alice
Evans, Albert
Lever, Harold (Cheetham)


Baird, John
Fernyhough, E.
Lever, L. M. (Ardwick)


Barnett, Guy
Finch, Harold
Lewis, Arthur (West Ham, N.)


Baxter, William (Stirlingshire, W.)
Fletcher, Eric
Lipton, Marcus


Beaney, Alan
Foot, Dingle (Ipswich)
Lubbock, Eric


Bellenger, Rt. Hon. F. J.
Galpern, Sir Myer
McBride, N.


Bence, Cyril
Ginsburg, David
MacColl, James


Bennett, J. (Glasgow, Bridgeton)
Gordon Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C.
McKay, John (Wallsend)


Benson, Sir George
Gourlay, Harry
Mackie, John (Enfield, East)


Blackburn, F.
Greenwood, Anthony
McLeavy, Frank


Blyton, William
Grey, Charles
Mahon, Simon


Boardman, H.
Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)
Mallalieu,J.P.W.(Huddersfield, E.)


Bottomley, Rt. Hon. A. G.
Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)
Manuel, Archie


Bowden, Rt. Hn. H. W.(Leics, S.W.)
Griffiths, W. (Exchange)
Mapp, Charles


Bowen, Roderic (Cardigan)
Grimond, Rt. Hon. J.
Marsh, Richard


Bowles, Frank
Gunter, Ray
Mason, Roy


Boyden, James
Hale, Leslie (Oldham, W.)
Mellish, R. J.


Braddock, Mrs. E. M.
Hamilton, William (West Fife)
Mendelson, J. J.


Bradley, Tom
Hannan, William
Millan, Bruce


Bray, Dr. Jeremy
Harper, Joseph
Milne, Edward


Brockway, A. Fenner
Hart, Mrs. Judith
Mitchison, G. R.


Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.
Hayman, F. H.
Moody, A. S.


Brown, Rt. Hon. George (Belper)
Henderson, Rt.Hn.Arthur(RwlyRegis)
Morris, John


Brown, Thomas (Ince)
Herbison, Miss Margaret
Noel-Baker, Francis (Swindon)


Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)
Hill, J. (Midlothian)
O'Malley, B. K.


Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)
Holman, Percy
Oram, A. E.


Callaghan, James
Hooson, H. E.
Oswald, Thomas


Carmichael, Neil
Houghton, Douglas
Owen, Will


Chapman, Donald
Hoy, James H.
Paget, R. T.


Cliffe, Michael
Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)
Pargiter, G. A.


Corbet, Mrs. Freda
Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Parker, John


Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)
Hunter, A. E.
Parkin, B. T.


Crosland, Anthony
Hynd, H, (Accrington)
Pavitt, Laurence


Crossman. R. H. S.
Hynd, John (Attercliffe)
Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd)


Cullen, Mrs. Alice
Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)
Peart, Frederick


Dalyell, Tam
Janner, Sir Barnett
Popplewell, Ernest


Darling, George
Jay, Rt. Hon. Douglas
Prentice, R. E.


Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)
Jeger, George
Probert, Arthur


Davies, Harold (Leek)
Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)
Pursey, Cmdr. Harry


Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Jones, Rt. Hn. A. Creech (Wakefield)
Randall, Harry


Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)
Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Rankin, John


Deer, George
Jones, Elwyn (West Ham, S.)
Redhead, E. C.


Dempsey, James
Jones, J. Idwal(Wrexham)
Rees, Merlyn (Leeds, S.)


Dodds, Norman
Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)
Reid, William


Donnelly, Desmond
Kelley, Richard
Rhodes, H.


Driberg, Tom
Kenyon, Clifford
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)




Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)
Steele, Thomas
Warbey, William


Robertson, John (Paisley)
Stewart, Michael (Fulham)
Weitzman, David


Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)
Stones, William
Wells, William (Walsall, N.)


Rodgers, W. T. (Stockton)
Strauss, Rt. Hn. G. R. (Vauxhall)
White, Mrs. Eirene


Rogers, G. H. R. (Kensington, N.)
Swain, Thomas
Whitlock, William


Ross, William
Symonds, J. B.
Wilkins, W, A.


Shinwell, Rt. Hon. E.
Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)
Willey, Frederick


Skeffington, Arthur
Thomas, Iorwerth (Rhondda, W.)
Williams, D. J. (Neath)


Slater, Mrs. Harriet (Stoke, N.)
Thompson, Dr. Alan (Dunfermline)
Williams, W. R. (Openshaw)


Slater, Joseph (Sedgefield)
Thomson, G. M. (Dundee, E.)
Woof, Robert


Small, William
Thornton, Ernest
Wyatt, Woodrow


Snow, Julian
Thorpe, Jeremy
Yates, Victor (Ladywood)


Sorensen, R. W.
Tomney, Frank
TELLERS FOR THE AYES: 


Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank
Wade, Donald
Mr. Charles A. Howell and Mr. Irving.


Spriggs, Leslie
Wainwright, Edwin



NOES


Altken, Sir William
Digby, Simon Wingfield
Kimball, Marcus


Allan, Robert (Paddington, S.)
Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. M.
Kirk, Peter


Allason, James
Doughty, Charles
Kitson, Timothy


Amery, Rt. Hon. Julian
Drayson, G. B.
Lagden, Godfrey


Arbuthnot, John
du Cann, Edward
Lancaster, Col. C. G.


Atkins, Humphrey
Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)
Langford-Holt, Sir John


Awdry, Daniel (Chippenham)
Elliott,R.W.(Newc'tle-upon-Tyne,N.)
Leburn, Gilmour


Balniel, Lord
Emmet, Hon. Mrs. Evelyn
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)


Barber, Anthony
Farey-Jones, F. W.
Lilley, F. J. P.


Barlow, Sir John
Farr, John
Lindsay, Sir Martin


Barter, John
Fisher, Nigel
Litchfield, Capt. John


Batsford, Brian
Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
Longbottom, Charles


Baxter, Sir Beverley (Southgate)
Forrest, George
Loveys, Walter H.


Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton
Foster, John
Lucas, Sir Jocelyn


Bell, Ronald
Fraser,Rt.Hn.Hugh(Stafford&amp;Stone)
Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh


Bennett, F. M. (Torquay)
Fraser, Ian (Plymouth, Sutton)
McAdden, Sir Stephen


Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gos &amp; Fhm)
Gammans, Lady
MacArthur, Ian


Berkeley, Humphry
Gardner, Edward
McLaren, Martin


Bevins, Rt. Hon. Reginald
George, Sir John (Pollok)
McLaughlin, Mrs. Patricia


Biffen, John
Gibson-Watt, David
Maclay, Rt. Hon. John


Biggs-Davison, John
Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, Central)
Macleod, Rt. Hn. Iain (Enfield, W.)


Bingham, R. M.
Glover, Sir Douglas
McMaster, Stanley R.


Birch, Rt. Hon. Nigel
Glyn, Dr. Alan (Clapham)
Markham, Major Sir Frank


Bishop, F. P.
Glyn, Sir Richard (Dorset, N.)
Marples, Rt. Hon. Ernest


Black, Sir Cyril
Goodhew, Victor
Marshall, Sir Douglas


Bossom, Hon. Clive
Gough, Frederick
Marten, Neil


Bourne-Arton, A.
Gower, Raymond
Mathew, Robert (Honiton)


Box, Donald
Grant-Ferris, R.
Matthews, Gordon (Meriden)


Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hon. John
Green, Alan
Mawby, Ray


Boyle, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward
Grosvenor, Lord Robert
Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.


Braine, Bernard
Gurden, Harold
Maydon, Lt. Cmdr. S. L. C.


Brewis, John
Hamilton, Michael (Wellingborough)
Mills, Stratton


Brooman-White, R.
Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.W.)
Miscampbell, Norman


Brown, Alan (Tottenham)
Harris, Reader (Heston)
More, Jasper (Ludlow)


Bryan, Paul
Harrison, Brian (Maldon)
Morgan, William


Buck, Antony
Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)
Nabarro, Sir Gerald


Bullard, Denys
Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere(Macclesf'd)
Neave, Airey


Bullus, Wing Commander Eric
Harvey, John (Walthamstow, E.)
Nicholson, Sir Godfrey


Burden, F. A.
Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel
Nugent, Rt. Hon. Sir Richard


Butcher, Sir Herbert
Henderson, John (Cathcart)
Oakshott, Sir Hendrie


Campbell, Gordon (Moray &amp; Nairn)
Hendry, Forbes
Orr-Ewing, Sir Charles


Carr, Compton (Barons Court)
Hiley, Joseph
Osborne, Sir Cyril (Louth)


Carr, Rt. Hon. Robert (Mitcham)
Hill, Mrs. Eveline (Wythenshawe)
Page, John (Harrow, West)


Cary, Sir Robert
Hill, J. E. B. (S. Norfolk)
Page, Graham (Crosby)


Channon, H. P. G.
Hirst, Geoffrey
Pannell, Norman (Kirkdale)


Clark, Henry (Antrim, N.)
Hobson, Rt. Hon. Sir John
Partridge, E.


Clark, William (Nottingham, S.)
Hocking, Philip N.
Pearson, Frank (Clitheroe)


Clarke, Brig. Terence(Portsmth, W.)
Holland, Philip
Peel, John


Cole, Norman
Hollingworth, John
Percival, Ian


Cooke, Robert
Hopkins, Alan
Peyton, John


Cooper, A. E.
Hornby, R. P.
Pickthorn, Sir Kenneth


Cooper-Key, Sir Neill
Hornsby-Smith, Rt. Hon. Dame P.
Pike, Miss Mervyn


Cordeaux, Lt.-Col. J. K.
Hughes Hallett, Vice-Admiral John
Pilkington, Sir Richard


Corfield, F. V.
Hughes-Young, Michael
Pitman, Sir James


Costain, A. P.
Hulbert, Sir Norman
Pitt, Dame Edith


Coulson, Michael
Iremonger, T. L.
Pott, Perclvall


Craddock, Sir Beresford (Spelthorne)
James, David
Powell, Rt. Hon. J. Enoch


Crawley, Aidan
Johnson, Dr. Donald (Carlisle)
Price, David (Eastleigh)


Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. Sir Oliver
Johnson, Eric (Blackley)
Prior, J. M. L.


Crowder, F. P.
Johnson Smith, Geoffrey
Prior-Palmer, Brig. Sir Otho


Cunningham, Knox
Jones, Arthur (Northants, S.)
Proudfoot, Wilfred


Curran, Charles
Jones, Rt. Hn. Aubrey (Hall Green)
Pym, Francis


Currie, G. B. H.
Joseph, Rt. Hon. Sir Keith
Ramsden, James


Dance, James
Kaberry, Sir Donald
Rees, Hugh (Swansea, W.)


d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry
Kerans, Cdr. J, S.
Rees-Davies, W. R. (Isle of Thanet)


Deedes, Rt. Hon. W. F.
Kerr, Sir Hamilton
Renton, Rt. Hon. David







Rippon, Rt. Hon. Geoffrey
Steward, Harold (Stockport, S.)
Vosper, Rr. Hon. Dennis


Roberts, Sir Peter (Heeley)
Studholme, Sir Henry
Wakefield, Sir Wavell


Robinson, Rt. Hn. Sir R. (B'pool,S.)
Talbot, John E.
Walder, David


Robson Brown, Sir William
Tapsell, Peter
Walker, Peter


Rodgers, John (Sevenoaks)
Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)
Walker-Smith, Rt. Hon. Sir Derek


Roots, William
Taylor, Edwin (Bolton, E.)
Wall, Patrick


Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard
Taylor, Frank (M'ch'st'r, Moss Side)
Ward, Dame Irene


Royle, Anthony (Richmond, Surrey)
Taylor, Sir William (Bradford, N.)
Wells, John (Maidstone)


Russell, Ronald
Teeling, Sir William
Whitelaw, William


St. Clair, M.
Temple, John M.
Williams, Dudley (Exeter)


Scott-Hopkins, James
Thomas, Sir Leslie (Canterbury)
Williams, Paul (Sunderland, S.)


Seymour, Leslie
Thompson, Sir Kenneth (Walton)
Wills, Sir Gerald (Bridgwater)


Sharples, Richard
Thompson, Sir Richard (Croydon, S.)
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Shaw, M.
Thornton-Kemsley, Sir Colin
Wise, A. R.


Shepherd, William
Tilney, John (Wavertree)
Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick


Skeet, T. H, H.
Touche, Rt. Hon. Sir Gordon
Woodhouse, C. M.


Smith, Dudley (Br'ntf'd &amp; Chiswick)
Turner, Colin
Woollam, John


Smithers, Peter
Turton, Rt. Hon. R. H.
Worsley, Marcus


Smyth, Rt. Hon. Brig. Sir John
Tweedsmuir, Lady



Spearman, Sir Alexander
van Straubenzee, W. R.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES: 


Speir, Rupert
Vaughan-Morgan, Rt. Hon. Sir John
Mr. Chichester-Clark and Mr. Finlay.


Stanley, Hon Richard
Vickers, Miss Joan

Original Question again proposed.

Sir Stephen McAdden: Sir Stephen McAdden (South end, East) rose—

It being after Ten o'clock, The Chairman left the Chair to report Progress and ask leave to sit again.

Committee report Progress; to sit again Tomorrow.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Proceedings on the Lords Amendments to the British Museum Bill exempted, at this day's Sitting, from the provisions of Standing Order No. 1 (Sittings of the House).—[Mr. Hughes-Young.]

BRITISH MUSEUM BILL

Lords Amendments considered.

New Clause.—(Report by Trustees.)

Lords Amendment: In page 3, line 43, at end insert new Clause A:
A. The Trustees of the British Museum shall within three years after the commencement of this Act and subsequently at intervals of not more than three years prepare and lay before each House of Parliament a report on the Museum.
Question proposed, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.—[Mr. du Cann.]

Mr. Robert Cooke: I hope that: my hon. Friend the Economic Secretary will accept this Amendment. When we discussed the Bill on a previous occasion there was a good deal of talk about publicity for the British Museum. As a result of a continuation of that, their Lordships have seen fit to suggest that the Museum should produce a report at intervals of not more than three years, That seems to me not a very great im-

position on the trustees of the Museum. They are not obliged to produce it at very regular intervals. I feel that such a report as is envisaged would create more public interest in the Museum, and that is what we all want. During the previous debates a good deal was said about that aspect.

The Museum has done much to modernise itself, and if the public is to enjoy all these new facilities its attention surely should be drawn to them. Therefore, I feel that the Government, who perhaps were not over-keen on this Amendment in their Lordships' House, would be well advised to reverse their decision and accept the Amendment because it continues the policy which the Government have been trying to pursue recently of bringing all our great national institutions into line with the needs of the day.

The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Edward du Cann): This is the first of the three Amendments which we are to consider tonight. It is a minor matter but, none the less, the most important of the three and covers an interesting point.
At present there is no obligation on the British Museum to publish reports. Up to 1938 it published an annual report, but the practice lapsed for reasons of economy, induced, of course, by the war, and it has not yet been resumed. This is a subject which, in spite of the correct reference of my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, West (Mr. Robert Cooke), was not touched on in detail in this House when we were considering the Bill earlier, but it caused a good deal of interest in another place and a clear view was expressed there that there should be such an arrangement.
This is a Government proposal designed to meet that intention but, at the same time, to allow the trustees some latitude about the timing and content of their report. It would enable them, for example, if they thought fit, to issue reports two or three years running on different aspects of the Museum's work and then, perhaps, have a gap of anything up to three years, but not more, before issuing another report. There can be little doubt that it is appropriate to put on the Museum some obligation to produce reports, for, as my hon. Friend says and as other right hon. and hon. Members well know, there is intense interest, not only in the United Kingdom but throughout the academic world, in the valuable and exciting work which the Museum is doing with such distinction.
We think that this flexibility will make for more interesting and valuable reports than might perhaps have flowed from an obligation to produce reports without fail every year. One might say that the object of the Amendment is"away dullness". It certainly does not imply any desire to discourage the trustees from issuing comprehensive reports, but leaves it to their judgment what to write about and, within limits, when. I am advised that the trustees welcome this provision which was well received on Report in the House of Lords.

10.15 p.m.

Mr. Douglas Houghton: This is not a very thrilling proposal to come from another place. Those of us interested in the Bill in its earlier stages in this House hoped for something more. We did not think of this matter in our discussions either on the Floor of the House or in Committee upstairs. It seems to have had a rather rough passage in another place.
It is rather surprising that the trustees have been under the blight of economy for so long. Reports which were issued up to 1938 were suspended on grounds of economy and have not been resumed since. One wonders what is the explanation of that. It is probably that the Government have kept the British Museum so short of money that the trustees have not felt that they could spend any of their meagre resources in publishing a report of their activities. In the last dozen years, we have had reports on

everything else under the sun, but not a report from the trustees of the British Museum.
In another place, the Government suggested that there was nothing to stop the trustees of the British Museum from publishing a Report and that, indeed, it would be welcome if they did. It would be undesirable to impose upon them a statutory obligation to publish a report every so often irrespective of whether they had anything interesting to say, and it would be much better left as it is. That was the Government's idea when the matter was first introduced in another place on 6th May.
It is, however, a little difficult to justify leaving things as they are if nothing happens as things are. Since the trustees have not published a report, although they were free to do so and the Government would have welcomed it had they done so, it is not surprising that a majority of their Lordships took the view that it was time to put a little discipline on the trustees of the British Museum to require them to say something at least once every three years.

Mr. Robert Cooke: Is it not a fact that the trustees have published a great deal of other matter, even if they have not published these annual reports?

Mr. Houghton: Yes, but, apparently, what they published did not satisfy the requirements of noble Lords, who pressed this matter to a Division against the advice of the Government in another place. This is a Government defeat brought here for ratification. That is the importance of this occasion. The Government has not resigned; they are bluffing it out. As the price of the Government's defeat in another place, the trustees of the British Museum are to labour under the yoke of a statutory obligation to report at least once every three years.
As the Economic Secretary has said, the trustees can report in driblets, if they like, now and again, but there must never be longer than a three years' gap between the last report and the next one. They can report every year if they like, if they have something to say, and then leave it for not more than three years before they make another report. Even if they report every year for 10 years, they have still to make another report within three years of the last one. This is a form of tyranny


which is now being imposed on the trustees of the British Museum owing to the weakness and indecision of the Government in another place.
I have read carefully the debates in another place. I have read the way in which the Government spokesman tried to slither through that important debate and I am not surprised that one noble Lord expressed something near to consternation at the indifference on behalf of the Government in another place.
The new Clause has important political significance. It is simply another indication that the Government have lost their grip and are slithering to defeat as a result of their incompetence in another place as well as their incompetence in this House. Nevertheless, we support the new Clause.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 7.—(Separation of Natural History Museum.)

Lords Amendment: In page 4, line 10, after"6" insert:"and section (Reports by Trustees)".

Mr. du Cann: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
Since the last Lords Amendment was received with such generosity, with such fervour, particularly on the part of the hon. Member for Sowerby (Mr. Hough-ton), I hope that he and, indeed, the whole House, will accept this Lords Amendment with equal fervour, for it is purely consequential on the first.

Question put and agreed to.

Second Schedule.—(Transitional Provisions as to Separation of Natural History Museum.)

Lords Amendment: In page 6, line 30, leave out
the proviso to section 5(1) of".

Mr. du Cann: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
Remarking upon the fervour with which the last Lords Amendment was accepted. I would only say that this is a purely technical drafting matter, and I hope that it will similarly be accepted with generosity.

Mr. Houghton: That is not really the correct description. This was a mistake

in the Bill. It was an oversight, an omission, slapdash work, put right in another place.

Mr. du Cann: I would ask the hon. Gentleman this question. Would it not have been very helpful to have drawn our attention to this earlier? I very much regret that he did not draw our attention to it earlier, for if he had we should have been quite ready to rectify the omission.

Mr. Robert Cooke: Does my hon. Friend think that the trustees, in their first triennial report, will be able to give an account of the speeches by the hon. Member for Sowerby (Mr. Houghton)—possibly in illustrated form?

Question put and agreed to.

TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING (MINERAL WORKINGS)

10.21 p.m.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Housing and Local Government (Mr. F. V. Corfield): I beg to move,
That the Town and Country Planning (Minerals) Regulations 1963, dated 19th June 1963, a copy of which was laid before this House on 20th June, be approved.
These Regulations are in effect a consolidation Measure, in the sense that they follow the main consolidation Act under which they are made and are consequential upon that consolidation. They take the place of the Regulations of 1954 which adapted the provisions of the then planning legislation to the circumstances of mineral workings, and these Regulations are designed to do exactly the same thing in relation to the Town and Country Planning Act, 1962, which is a consolidation Act, as the House knows. I think the only new provisions—very minor ones—arise in Regulation 4. The consolidating 1962 Act contains certain provisions of the Caravan Sites and Control of Development Act, 1960, which were not, of course, previously in the Town and Country Planning Act, and, therefore, could not affect the 1954 Regulations. The 1954 Regulations remain operative, in so far as they are still appropriate, in accordance with the Fourteenth Schedule to the 1962 Act.

Question put and agreed to.

FISHING INDUSTRY, NORTH SHIELDS

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. I. Fraser.]

10.24 p.m.

Dame Irene Ward: I am very mollified tonight by the receipt last week of a letter from my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food informing me that the new Chairman of the White Fish Authority was shortly to visit the port of North Shields and to consider in detail, and, I hope, helpfully, the position of the fishing port of North Shields with a view to helping that port in the very difficult circumstances in which it finds itself. I was very pleased to receive this information, because having been fortunate enough in the Ballot to secure the Adjournment debate for tonight I had intended to deliver as powerful an attack as I might on the White Fish Authority, because, having observed its operations during the last few years, I had come to the conclusion that it was not operating satisfactorily, at any rate so far as the North-East coast was concerned.
After the publication of the Fleck Report, with all its important recommendations, and the attention that had been paid to the fishing industry by Lord Fleck and his colleagues, I felt that the White Fish Authority as constituted failed to live up to the recommendations and the work that had been done by the Fleck Committee.
I also felt that my right hon. Friend was much more interested in agriculture than in fisheries. I did not feel that, at any rate in my part of the world, since the distant water fleets and the middle water fleets had come under the jurisdiction of the White Fish Authority the middle water fleet had received as much support and help as it had had in the past. I felt that the distant water fleet had received far too much attention, to the detriment of other fleets. I felt—and I say this with regret, because I know of its struggles, just as I know of the struggles of the port of North Shields—that the White Fish Authority had granted loans to Aberdeen which resulted in there being too many trawlers operat-

ing to the detriment of both Aberdeen and North Shields.
Indeed, I also felt—and I say this again with regret, because I am not an expert in these matters—that wherever one went in the fishing world the only people who seemed to be exercising any influence at all on my right hon. Friend was the Ross Group. It seemed to be flourishing. It may be, as I understand it is, a very important firm, but I am not one of those who like the big chaps to outdo the smaller chaps, and I did not feel that the Minister of Agriculture was really interested in what happened to my small port of North Shields.
Ever since I returned to the House in 1950 successive Ministers of Agriculture, both in the House of Commons and in Committees, have always asked what was going to be done to resuscitate the port of North Shields. We had an excellent record in the help that fishermen gave to the war effort but, for reasons which were not difficult to understand, the old trawler owners who had contributed their work in their own fleets to the fishing off North Shields had to turn to other occupations. None of the trawler owners appeared to have sons who were interested in going into the fishing industry to follow in the footsteps of their fathers.
Not unnaturally, a very steady decline in fishing set in at the port of North Shields and, as I have already said, successive Ministers of Agriculture continually asked me what was going to be done about North Shields which, as they said, was giving cause for great concern in the Ministry. I assumed that each Minister of Agriculture was only waiting for a move to come from the port of North Shields, and that any action in that direction would be welcomed with open arms.
After a very long period, at least there came a stir. The port of North Shields is unique in that the fishing quay is owned by a very competent local authority, the County Borough of Tynemouth, which takes a very great interest in everything that the fishing industry does, for it is an integral part of the livelihood of the people of the district.
When a son of a very well-known trawler owner, Mr. John Purdy, decided that he would like to come into the industry, we thought that he would be


welcomed by my right hon. Friend with open arms and that everything possible would be done to help him to build up his father's fleet, for that would help not only the North Shields fishing interests but the local authority and the general revival of industry in the port. I was sadly disappointed, as were all those interested. We then entered a battle with my right hon. Friend which we have so far lost, but I am slightly mollified by my right hon. Friend's letter, which seems to indicate that the unpleasant things which have been said about the White Fish Authority and my right hon. Friend have at last begun to make an impression.
Mr. John Purdy is a very creative young man who has had wide technical training. He has great knowledge of the world and has certain interests, as has his family, in Australia. Because of his integrity and ability, he gets great support from certain interests on the North-East Coast. Before putting forward his ideas about grants and loans, he was joined in his enterprise by people with private money which they were willing to invest in the industry. As far as we could see, if the Ministry would be encouraging, we should be taking a step in the right direction.
I cannot comment on the technical design which Mr. Purdy put to the White Fish Authority, but there is no doubt that those who are technically competent to express an opinion said that there was great merit both in the design of the trawlers for which Mr. Purdy wished to obtain grants and loans and in his design for a fishing fleet.
We were all somewhat staggered when we met with a complete refusal to make any grant or loan. There are only two ports which, because of their peculiar situation, do not have to scrap a trawler when they get a grant or loan to build a new one. They are Milford Haven and North Shields, and this is an indication of our dire need.
Mr. Purdy was unable to make any progress and he then decided to ask for a grant and loan for building a trawler of what was called a conventional type. Nobody could see that there could be any objection to that, but the White Fish Authority refused a grant and loan for that, too. Again, this caused great consternation.
After what I had heard from the British Trawler Owners' Federation, it seemed to me that too many trawlers had been built. This related particularly to the port of Aberdeen. There was a feeling that the fishing areas could have been restricted and that those which were left were being over-fished. It seemed that the White Fish Authority, having over-aided Aberdeen, intended to knock the port of North Shields on the head. That did not suit North Shields or my local authority, or Mr. Purdy—and it certainly did not suit me. I hope that it does not suit my hon. Friend the Joint Parliamentary Secretary, who is to reply on behalf of my right hon. Friend.
I thought that I would find out the proportion of grants and loans made to Scotland compared with English ports. I made the inquiry, and there was a very long delay. I must say that the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food is a very slow Government Department—but possibly agriculturalists are slower than industrialists. After a very long delay and many telephone calls, I received a letter from my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture telling me that I was quite wrong in thinking that Scotland had received favours at the expense of England. The curious thing was that in the analysis which he sent to me of trawlers which had been grant-aided there was mention only of England and Wales and no mention of Scotland. The word"Scotland" did not appear in the analysis at all, and this made me more suspicious than ever.
Next, my attention was drawn to the fact that the old system of asking for tenders by those who applied for grants and loans for building new trawlers had gone by the board. I have never heard an announcement that the old system of asking for tenders was being abolished by the White Fish Authority. It is true that when we have a debate on this subject it is nearly always at 2 a.m. or 3 a.m. Perhaps my right hon. Friend forgot to tell us that the White Fish Authority had abolished local tendering. When I went into the matter I also found that certain trawler firms were building trawlers in their own yards without tendering. When my right hon. Friend took the decision to allow—because of G.A.T.T.—trawler owners to


build abroad if they so desired, I wrote to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, because I always adopt the technique that if I do not get a satisfactory answer from one Government Department, I set about going to another. I then compare the two letters, which sometimes produces the most interesting results.
The Minister of Agriculture told me that they had departed from tendering about 1954–55 but that he was considering reimposing the obtaining of tenders before a grant-in-aid was made. At the same time I had a fascinating letter from the Chancellor of the Exchequer who said that he had read my correspondence on the matter of tendering with very great interest but that he always understood that the Trawler Owners' Federation thought that competitive tendering was impracticable. This was a conflict of opinion and of evidence which only reinforced my view that the White Fish Authority had got completely out of control and was not doing the job which it was set up to do by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture.
All these extraordinary things have happened and the total result has been that, in spite of the fact that we regarded it as something special if we did not have to scrap a trawler in order to build a new trawler, we in North Shields got no help at all, and all the energy and initiative of the son of a well-known trawler owner went by the board.
My hon. Friend may be interested in this next point, because I notice that the Chancellor of the Exchequer said that we must get down to it and encourage youth. I hope that when he reads the debate he will realise that this is an opportunity. This young man is full of energy and knowledge. I am glad to say that he has now been put on a technical committee dealing with the design of trawlers. This is a move in the right direction. I hope that the Chancellor, who is young and interested in youth, will at least take the initiative in seeing that a young man who is anxious to build up a new trawler fleet at North Shields is given his opportunity. He is young, very active and very able, and I was delighted when he wrote to me and said that anybody who thinks that the port of North Shields will not fight for its position is

living in a fool's paradise. I hope that my hon. Friend will remember that.
I want to make only one other observation, because I am longing to hear what good news my hon. Friend has for me tonight. I want to refer to a letter which the Town Clerk of the County Borough of Tynemouth wrote to the North-East Development Council on the subject of the port of North Shields. I approve of the letter. I have also made my representations to Lord Hailsham. The position of the port of North Shields has been the subject of deputations received by the Prime Minister from the local Conservative Members of Parliament and from the North-East Development Council.
My Town Clerk says this:
During the period from 1945 there has been, much to the concern of the Council"—
this letter was written on 1st May, 1963—
and those connected with the industry, a steady and regrettable decline in the number of trawlers based upon and operating from the port. Compared with the average of about sixty trawlers prior to 1939, there are now only nine trawlers and fifteen seine net boats operating regularly from North Shields. After taking into account the increased efficiency and productivity of the nine new trawlers, it is still estimated that an average of between twenty and thirty trawlers supported by an adequate number of seine net vessels is required to make up for the loss in fishing capacity.
To make good this deficiency in supplies, many wholesale fish merchants at the quay find it necessary to bring in supplies of fish from other ports to meet the demands of their inland customers, and they have given an assurance that if there was a regular and sufficient supply of fresh fish landed direct at North Shields, they would purchase their requirements locally rather than from other markets.
That puts the position into perspective.
I am not quite certain how good the position of the wholesalers at North Shields is. It may be that my hon. Friend can make suggestions about that to us. All I want to know tonight—I want to know it absolutely certainly and with no equivocation—is that this disastrous position at North Shields will now occupy the attention of my right hon. Friend and my hon. Friend so that there will be no more complaints that the North-East Coast, to which we are giving so much attention now, is not being properly dealt with.

10.44 p.m.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. James Scott-Hopkins): Luckily we shall be having the opportunity for a debate on the fishing industry next week in connection with the White Fish and Herring Subsidy Orders. I am glad to be able to tell my hon. Friend the Member for Tynemouth (Dame Irene Ward) that I do not think that debate will be in the early hours of the morning.
In the short time left to me I will try to answer some of the main points my hon. Friend made. We will have to leave some of the more general points until next week's debate. My hon. Friend, as always, put her case extremely cogently and with great force. She persistently made the point that the trawler fleet of North Shields must not be treated any worse than the fleet of any other port. She is anxious that we should look into this matter with urgency.
It is vital, when discussing aid to fishing companies—about the supplying of loans and grants for building—to remember that it is aid for people who are willing to put up some of their own money and are thought to be able to carry out the obligations which this entails. Some mistakes are inevitable, I hope very few, but the White Fish Authority is necessarily much concerned with the financial status and efficiency—financial and technical—of applicants for these funds.
The Authority is under an obligation to use its judgment in these matters and the answer to requests for pressure to be put on the Authority must be that under the Sea Fish Industry Act, 1951, responsibility is vested in the Authority. We as a Government cannot intervene in particular cases, although the fishery Ministers may give directions about general policy.
We should, first, get the facts right. Grants and loans for near and middle water vessels were introduced in 1953. The Fleck Committee reported on the industry at the beginning of 1961 and, after its Report, everything was to some extent in the melting pot and the White Fish Authority stayed its hand. Up to the end of 1960 the White Fish Authority had received applications for the

construction of 13 trawlers for North Shields firms. Of those 13, 12 were approved and one was rejected.
Regarding two approvals, for Messrs. Purdy, the White Fish Authority had found that, after two-and-a-half years, these vessels had not been commenced and, naturally, it withdrew its approval. That was the position up to the time of the Fleck Report. After the publication of that Report—that is, from then up till now—20 further applications have been received. Six of these have been deferred for further consideration and are still being considered. Of the rest, one was for an experimental vessel and was turned down by the Authority. Seven applications were from completely new entrants to the industry, which were turned down because the number of applicants was very high in relation to fishing resources. Twoapplications—from Messrs. Richard Irvin & Son—were approved. There were four further applications from Messrs. Purdy, which have also been turned down.
By the time that North Shields got into its stride in taking the opportunity to use the provisions of the grants and loan arrangements, there were already signs that firms were getting, or were likely to get, into difficulties in their repayments to the Authority. Further, changes in Government policy—-the"scrap-and-build"arrangements—were under discussion with the Authority, and the British Trawlers' Federation put in a request that no further assistance should be given to vessels of 139 feet. It is fair to say that the Authority was right, between 1961 and 1962, in being extremely selective in dealing with applications.
As my hon. Friend mentioned, Tynemouth Corporation owns the port. Officials of the Corporation have been in touch with the Authority and officials from the Ministry, on both general and particular aspects of this matter. I was pleased to see that my hon. Friend was slightly mollified by the fact that the new Chairman, who only took office on the 1st of this month—and this is a measure of his concern with the problems of North Shields—will visit the port on the 24th of this month to look into conditions there. I think that it is only right that, to some extent, we should await his appraisal of the situation on the spot.
My hon. Friend mentioned that the fleet had diminished, and that is true. There were 40 trawlers over 70 ft. long 10 years ago, most of them being coal burning, but now that the last of the coal burners has ceased to operate there are in this size group 10 trawlers, of which one is old and nine are new. In addition, there are, as my hon. Friend knows, three on the stocks. At the same time, the number of the smaller vessels, between 40 ft. and 70 ft., has risen from five to 22 in the same period. Of these, 14 have been helped by grants and loans from the White Fish Authority, so that the balance between seiners and inshore vessels has been changed. During the last five years the landings—which are much more likely to fluctuate when there are more inshore vessels—have not varied all that much. They have fallen by about 10 per cent. or 15 per cent., but the value of the catch has not fallen.
My hon. Friend was worried about the position of Messrs. Purdy, and here we must get the facts absolutely straight. Purdys put in an application to build two vessels of 115 ft. costing about £80,000 each, and the Authority approved the project in 1954. Between 1954 and 1959, only three applications had come in from North Shields of which two were approved and one was turned down. Although other proposals did come in during 1960 and 1961, it was not until 1962 that Purdy Trawlers Limited, which now has only one vessel, put in further applications, first for a

139 ft. experimental vessel, and then for four 139 ft. stern trawlers. I should like to make it clear that there is at present no application before the Authority.
I entirely accept what my hon. Friend has said about the need to encourage young people to go forward, and young Mr. Purdy is to be commended for his enterprise and initiative in doing what he has to resuscitate and get things really going again. I cannot go into all the details of this particular case but, as I say, the Chairman is to go to North Shields, and I hope that Mr. Purdy will take advantage of that visit to put forward whatever views and case he has to the Chairman himself.
My hon. Friend mentioned competitive tendering. The position is that the White Fish Authority has entire authority to deal with this matter, which is why no announcement was made to the House by my right hon. Friend. We are again looking into the question of competitive tendering for vessels built at home, but the Authority did find from its experience in earlier years that it was in a position, with the trawler owners, to assess the tenders that came in on the home side. Any tenders that come in from overseas—

The Question having been proposed after Ten o'clock, and the debate having continued for half an hour, Mr. Speaker adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Adjourned at six minutes to Eleven o'clock.